IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


If  ilM  IIM 

2.2 


12.0 


1.8 


1.25 

1.4 

J4 

< 6"     — 

► 

VI 


^ 


n 


■em 


W  %/.>/ 


O 


y. 


y;M 


/A 


Photographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


C!HM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHIVI/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


D 

D 
D 
D 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couieur 

Covers  damaged/ 
Couverture  endommagee 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaur^e  et/ou  pelliculee 

Cover  title  missing/ 

Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 


I      I    Coloured  maps/ 


n 


n 


D 


Cartes  gAographiques  en  couieur 


Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couieur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couieur 


Bound  with  other  material/ 
Relii  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  re  liure  serree  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distorsion  le  long  de  la  marge  interieure 


Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajouties 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  dtait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  iti  filmies. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  supplementaires; 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  axemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  ete  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-^tre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  m^thode  normaie  de  filmage 
sont  indiquds  ci-dessous. 


0 


n 
0 


n 


Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couieur 


r~—[    Pages  damaged/ 


Pages  endommagees 

Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restaurees  et/ou  pelticui^es 


Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
Pages  d^colorees,  tachet^es  ou  piquees 


[~~|    Pages  detached/ 


Pages  d^tachees 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Quality  inigale  de  {'impression 

Includes  supplementary  materii 
Comprend  du  materiel  supplementaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponibie 


r~7|  Showthrough/ 

I      I  Quality  of  print  varies/ 

r~|  Includes  supplementary  material/ 

p~1  Only  edition  available/ 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc..  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure. 
etc.,  cnt  ^t§  fiJm^es  ^  nouveau  de  facon  a 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


The 

to  tl 


The 
pot 
oft 
film 


Grit 
beg 
the 
sior 
oth( 
firit 
sior 
or  il 


The 
sho 
TIN 
whi 

Mai 
diffi 
enti 
beg 
righ 
reqi 
met 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  filmd  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqu^  ci-dessous. 


10X 

14X 

18X 

22X 

26X 

30X 

/ 

12X 


16X 


20X 


24X 


28X 


32X 


The  copy  filmad  h«r«  has  b««n  reproduced  thanks 
to  tha  ganarosity  of: 

Library  Division 

Provincial  Archives  of  British  Columbia 


L'axamplaira  film*  fut  raproduit  grica  A  la 
gAnirosIti  da: 

Library  Division 

Provincial  Archives  of  British  Columbia 


Tha  imagas  appearing  hara  ara  tha  bast  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Las  images  suivantas  ont  4tA  raproduites  avac  la 
plus  grand  soin,  compta  tenu  de  la  condition  at 
da  la  nettet*  de  I'exemplaira  filmA,  et  en 
conformity  avac  las  conditions  du  contrat  da 
filmaga. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  ^^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  Y  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 


Las  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimAe  sont  filmAs  en  commen^ant 
par  la  premier  plat  at  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
darniAre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration.  soit  par  la  second 
plat,  salon  la  cas.  Tous  las  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  fiim^s  en  commen^ant  par  la 
premiAre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  derniAre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaitra  sur  la 
darniire  Image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  la  symbols  -^  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  le 
symbols  V  signifie  "FIN". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartas,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  Atre 
filmAs  it  das  taux  de  reduction  diffArents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  dtre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clich6,  il  est  HlmA  A  partir 
de  Tangle  supArieur  gauche,  de  gauche  A  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  an  prenant  la  nombre 
d'images  nAcessaira.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mAthode. 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

■'  t 


20th  Congress, 
Ut  Session. 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


Ho.  ov  Reps. 

Executive. 


TERRITORY  WEST  OF  THE  ROCKY  MOUNTAINS. 


KtOiSSA^a 


fV- 


':h-~ 


FROM   THE 


PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


TRAXAMITTING  THK   CORMESPOITSSSrCE   BETWEEN 


THIS  GOVERNMENT  ArD  THAT  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN, 


■,-=t;;|jr-,  ■ 


OW  THE   srBJECT  OF  THE 


CL>9IM8  OF  THE  TWO  GOVEBJ^MEJTTS 


J*U'!!-' 


T©  THE 


'SSKBVSOn  WS8T  OP  THS  »OOXV  VLOWTAIKM^ 


■'*.,«•■■       "tH^ 


March  15,  1828. 

V,  nead,  and  kid  upon  the  table. 


'^ 

trs^Sir- 

■:.    ^^^^"-  ■  , 

• 

■■ 

'W^ASHINOTON  : 

L'RTKTEn  BT  OAtES 

£i  BEATOjr. 

1828. 

^ 

i 

• 

[Doc.  No.  199.] 


B 


To  the  Hmse  of  Bepresentatives of  the  United  States: 

W ASHiNOTOi^y  15tA  JIfarcA,  16S8. 

In  compliance  with  a  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  of 
the  2l8t  ultimo,  requesting  me  to  lay  before  the  House,  correspondence, 
not  heretofore  communicated,  between  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  and  that  of  Great  Britain,  on  the  subject  of  the  claims  of  the 
two  Governments  to  tlie  Territory  westward  of  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tains, I  transmit,  herewith,  a  report  of  the  Secretary  ef  State,  with  the 
documents  requested  by  the  resolution. 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 


:i^:»    - 


r-    •n- 


[Doc.  No.  199.J 


■  a 


'', . 


/  .,- 


-    Department  of  State,  >  '  ,      • 

'      :        •  Washingtorif  I3th  JUarch,  1828. 

The  Secretary  of  State,  to  whom  has  been  referred  a  resolution  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  of  the  21st  ultimo,  requesting  the  Pre- 
sident to  lay  before  that  House  any  correspondence,  not  heretofore 
communicated,  which  may  have  taken  place  between  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  and  that  of  Great  Britain,  on  the  subject  of  tlie 
claims  of  the  two  Governments  to  the  Territory  westward  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains,  if,  in  his  opinion,  tlic  same  can  be  communicated 
without  injury  to  the  public  interest,  has  the  honor  to  report  to  the 
President  the  accompanying  pamphlet,  which,  with  the  manuscript 
copy  added  thereto,  contains  copies  of  so  much  of  the  correspondence 
required,  as,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Secretary,  can,  \yith  propriety, 
be  made  public  at  this  time. 

Respectfully  submitted.  ' '      : 

H.  CLAY.    - 


1 . 


[Doc.  No.  199.'J 


n 


I 

List  of  Papers  accompanying  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State^  of 

the  I5th  Jfarch,  IH2S, 


Mr.  Clay  to  Mi*.  Gallatin, 

Same  to  same,         .... 

Same  to  same,         .... 

Same  to  same,         .... 

Mr.  Gallatin  to  Mr.  Clay, 

4Same  to  same,         .        .        .        - 

Same  to  same,         .... 

Same  to  same,         .... 

Same  to  same,        ..... 

Same  to  same,        .        .        .        ^ 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same,         .... 
Same  to  same,        •        .      ^  . 
Same  to  same,        .... 
Same  to  same,         .... 
Protocols,   1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9, 
]Pix)jectof  Convention. 
Project  of  an  article  of  Convention,  A. 
Declaration  proposed  to  be  annexed  to 
respecting  N.  W.  boundary. 


1  gth  June,  1 826.    Extract 
23d  June,  1826.         do. 
8th  August,  1826.  Copy. 
24tliFeb.  18'27.         do. 
16th  Nov.  1826.        do. 
25th  Nov.  1826.         do. 
2d  December,  1826.  do. 
5th  Dec.  1 826.       Extract. 
12th  Dec.  1826.         do. 
20th  Dec.  1826.      Copy. 
29th  May,  1827.    Extract. 
20th  June,  1827.        do. 
23d  June,  1827.     Copy. 
27th  June,  1827.    Extract. 
7th  August,  1827.  Copy. 
10,  12,  and  13. 


the  renewal  of  the  Convention 


of 
on  I 


'>     ,» 


[Doc.  No.  19ft.]  J 

...      -  ' 

[bxtbact.]  '^ 

Jfr.  Clay  to  Mr,  Oallatin. 

June  19»  1826. 

^<8.  The  establishment  of  a  boundary  between  the  territories  of  the 
two  parties,  beyond  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  on  the  Northwest  coast 
of  America. 

It  is  not  thought  necessary  to  add  much  to  the  argument  advanced 
on  this  point  in  the  instructions  given  to  Mr.  Rush,  (a  copy  of  which 
is  herewith  communicated,)  and  that  which  was  employed  by  him,  in 
the  course  of  his  negotiation,  to  support  our  title,  as  derived  from 
prior  discovery  and  settlement  at  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia,  and 
from  the  treaty  with  Spain,  concluded  on  the  2Sd  of  February,  1819* 
That  argument  is  believed  to  have  conclusively  established  our  title, 
on  both  grounds.     Nor  is  it  conceived  that  Great  Britain  has,  or  can 
make  out,  even  a  colorable  title  to  any  portion  of  the  Northwest  Coast. 
If  she  had  any  claim,  prior  to  the  treaty  of  1763,  it  was  renounced 
by  that  treaty,  according  to  which  the  Mississippi  was  fixed  as  the 
western  limit  of  her  territories  on  this  Continent.     If  she  acquired 
any  title,  subsequent  to  that  epoch,  we  have  yet  to  learn  how,  and  by 
what  means,  it  was  obtained.    The  settlement  at  Nootka  Sound,  in 
1788,  cannot  be  admitted  to  have  conferred   any;  but  if  it  did,  that 
settlentent  was  north  of  the  line,  to  which  we  are  now  willing  to 
agree.    By  the  renunciation  and  transfer  contained  in  the  treaty  with 
Spain  of  1819,  our  right  extended  to  the  60th  degree  of  north  latitude. 
By  our  treaty  with  Russia,  of  April,  1824,  it  has  been  agreed  to  limit 
it  to  the  54th  degree.     By  agreeing  to  our  proposal,  to  adopt  the 
parallel  of  49,  which  is  conceived  in  a  genuine  spirit  of  concession 
and  conciliation,   and  under  the  operation  of  the  Russian  Treaty, 
Great  Britain  will  acquire,    what  she  had  not  before,  or,  at  least, 
what  was  open  to  much  controversy,  a  clear  title  to  an  extent  of  five 
degrees  of  latitude  fronting  on  the  Pacific,  which  is  but  little  short  of 
.  that  which  will  appertain  to  the  United  States.     It  was  stated  by 
the  British  Plenipotentiaries  to  Mr.  Rush,  that  the  surrender  to  the 
United  States  of  the  post  at  the  mouth  of  Columbia  river,  was  in 
fulfilment  of  the  stipulations  of  the  first  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent, 
without  affecting  questions  of  right  on  either  side.     It  is  most  true 
that  the  restoration  was  in  conformity  to  that  article,  but  there  is 
nothing  in  the  terms  of  the  article  which  implies  any  reservation  of 
right  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain.     And  does  not  the  stipulation  it- 
self, in  virtue  of  which  she  was  bound  to  restore  it,  demonstrate  that, 
at  the  date  of  that  treaty,  she  had  no  pretensions  to  the  moi^th  of  Co- 
lumbia ?    If  she  then  had  any  claim,  would  she  have  contracted  to 
restore  the  possession  unconditionally,  and  without  even  the  formality 
of  a  reservation  of  her  right  ?    The  course  which  was  adopted  in  re- 


■iJ  v;  .■ 


'I 


I   i 


S  [Doc.  No.  199.] 

ga'rd  to  anotlici'  territorial  possrssion,  claimed  by  botli  parties,  was 
very  «litferent.  She  Iiatl  reduced,  by  her  arms,  Moose  Island,  in  the 
Bay  of  PaMsnmaquoddy,  as  well  as  the  post  at  Columbia.  She  re- 
fuHcd  to  restore  Moose  Iftland,  on  the  ground  of  the  title  which  she 
set  up  to  it,  as  being  included  within  the  limits  of  Nova  Scotia  ;  and 
the  resjicctivc  titles  of  both  parties  were  agreed  to  be  referred  to  a 
Board  of  Commissioners.  Now,  if,  with  respect  to  two  possessions, 
taken  by  her  arms  during  the  war,  she  agreed  to  restore  one  uncon- 
ditionally, and  insisted  upon  retaining  the  occupancy  of  the  otiier,  as 
belonging  to  her,  is  not  the  inference  irresistible,  that  her  present 
claim  to  that  which  was  so  restored,  did  not  then  exist,  but  has  been 
subsequently  gotten  up  ? 

It  is  true  that  the  third  article  of  the  Convention  of  1818,  recog- 
nizes that  Great  Britain  then  had  claims  on  the  Northwest  Coast,  but 
it  neither  defines  nor  settles  them,  nor  specifies  when  they  had  their 
origin.  The  same  article  contains  an  express  declaration  that  it  is 
not  to  affect  the  claims  of  any  other  Power.  Now,  it  having  been 
shown  that  the  title  of  Spain  extended  to  the  60th  degree  of  north 
latitude,  tliat  must  have  been  one  of  those  which  were  particularly  in 
the  contemplation  of  the  parties  to  the  above  Convention  of  1818. 
And  we  have  already  seen,  that,  subsequently  to  that  period,  the 
United  States  acquired  from  Spain  all  her  territorial  rights  on  the 
Northwest  Coast,  north  of  the  parallel  of  42,  as  far  as  they  extended, 
and  consequently  up  to  60.  As  by  the  Convention  of  1818,  the  49th 
parallel  of  north  latitude  has  been  agreed  to  be  the  line  of  boundary  be- 
tween the  territories  of  tlie  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  east  of 
the  Stony  Mountains,  there  would  seem  to  arise,  from  that  stipulation, 
a  strong  consideration  for  the  extension  of  the  line  along  the  same 
parallel,  west  of  them,  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  In  bringing  themselves 
to  consent  to  this  boundary,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  feel 
that  they  are  animated  by  a  spirit  of  concession  and  compromise, 
which  they  persuade  themselves  that  of  Great  Britain  cannot  but  re- 
cognize, Jind  ought  not  to  liesitate  in  reciprocating.  You  are  then 
authorized  to  propose  the  annulment  of  the  third  article  of  the  Con- 
vention of  1818,  and  the  extension  of  the  line  on  the  parallel  of  49, 
from  the  eastern  side  of  the  Stony  Mountains,  where  it  now  termi- 
nates, to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  as  the  permiinent  boundary  between  the 
territories  of  the  two  Powers  in  that  quarter.  This  is  our  ultima- 
tum, and  you  may  so  announce  it.  We  can  consent  to  no  other  line 
more  favorable  to  Great  Britain.  You  are  authorized,  further,  to 
agree,  that,  if  the  above  line  shall  pass  any  of  the  branches  of  the  Co- 
lumbia river,  which  are  navigable  from  where  it  intersects  them  to 
the  ocean,  British  subjects  shall  not  be  disturbed  in  the  right  freely  to 
navigate  such  branches,  and  the  Columbia  itself,  to  the  ocean,  in  com- 
mon with  the  citizens  of  the  United  States.  That,  in  the  mean  time, 
until  tlie  line  is  actually  traced  and  marked  out,  this  right  of  naviga- 
tion shall  be  so  enjoyed  in  common  ;  that  the  contracting  parties 
will  adopt  measures  in  concert  to  have  the  line  marked  within  the 
next  ensuing  term  of  fifteen  years ;  and  that,  if  upon  the  experiment 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


«# 


V 


being  made,  tlic  brandies  of  the  Columbia  aro  not  navigable  by  boats 
from  where  tho  lino  passes  tiiom  to  the  Columbia,  the  British  right  to 
navigate  them  sliall  cease.  If  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  should 
insist  upon  British  subjects,  who  may  have  made  any  settlements  or 
establishments  south  of  49.  being  allowed  time  for  removal,  you  may 
agree  to  tho  term  of  five  years  for  that  purpose;  making  the  stipula- 
tion reciprocal,  so  as  to  comprehend  American  settlements  or  estab- 
lishments, if  there  bo  any,  north  of  that  parallel.  And  you  will  fur- 
ther propose,  as  a  regulation  which  is  deemed  by  the  (Government  of 
the  United  States  to  be  material  in  preventing  collisions,  that  the  ci- 
tizens and  subjects  of  the  two  parties  shall,  in  trading  with  the  na- 
tives, and  in  the  pursuit  of  game  and  fur,  be  restricted  to  tho  sides  of 
the  line  agreed  upon,  of  their  respective  countries.  It  would  bo 
competent  for  each  Government,  after  the  fixation  of  the  line,  by  its 
separate  legislation,  to  exclude  foreigners ;  but  it  is  better  that  notico 
of  such  exclusion,  to  all  persons  concerned,  should  bo  at  once  pro- 
mulgated in  tho  body  of  the  treaty  itself." 

«The  third  and  fourth  articles  of  the  Convention  of  the  20th  day 
of  October,  1818,  negotiated  by  you  and  Mr.  Rush,  are  limited,  re- 
spectively, to  a  period  of  ten  years  from  that  date.  As  the  term  will 
now  soon  run  out,  it  is  necessary  for  the  parties  to  consider  whether 
those  articles  shall  be  allowed  to  expire,  or  be  continued  with  or  with- 
out modifications.  The  third  article  relates  to  the  territories  claimed 
by  the  contracting  parties,  on  the  Northwest  Coast  of  America,  west- 
ward of  the  Stony  Mountains,  and  provides,  among  other  things,  that 
they  shall  be  fi>ee  and  open,  for  the  abovementioncd  term,  to  the  ves- 
sels, citizens,  and  subjects,  of  the  two  Powers.  If  you  should  be 
able,  according  to  the  instructions  herein  previously  given,  to  agree 
with  the  British  Government  on  a  boundary  between  the  territories  of 
the  two  parties,  that  article  may  be  rescinded,  or  left  to  expire  by  the 
lapse  of  time.  If  you  should  be  unable  to  come  to  any  such  agree- 
ment, you  may  consent  to  that  article  remaining  in  force  during  an- 
other term  of  ten  years.  From  a  despatch  just  received  from  Mr. 
King,  communicating  a  note  from  Mr.  Canning,  under  date  of  the 
20th  April  last,  .(copies  of  both  are  herewith,)  the  probability  is  strong 
that  you  will  find  no  difficulty  in  arranging  this  question  of  boundary 
satisfactorily. 

The  fourth  article  relates  to  the  Convention  concluded  at  London^ 
on  the  third  of  July,  1815,  and  continues  and  extends  it  for  the  before- 
mentioned  term  of  ten  years.  You  are  authorized  to  agree  to  its  fur- 
ther extension  for  another  period  of  ten  years,  and  beyond  the  expira- 
tion of  that  time,  until  one  party  shall  give  to  the  other  six  calendar 
months'  written  notice  of  his  desire  to  put  an  end  to  it ;  at  the  end  of 
whvcJLtime  it  shall  altogether  cease."  .  , 


I 


i» 


1^ 


„.  .--^  Ji 


■■•"V 


pioc.  No.  199.] 

Mr,  Canning  to  Mr.  King, 

[  1 

.^      FoBEiON  Office,  ,9pril  20th,  1826. 


!r-.:;i 


ITie  unJersigned,  his  Majesty's  Principal  Seci-etary  of  State  for 
Foreign  Affairs,  has  the,  hontfr  to  request  Mr.  Rufus  Ring,  Envoy 
Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States,  to 
have  the  goodness  to  inform  the  undersigiled,  whetlier  Mr.  King  is 

Itrovided  with  instructions  for  the  resumption  of  the  negotiations  of 
ast  year,Avith  respect  to  a  settlement  of  boundaries  upon  the  North- 
west Coast  of  America  ?  The  undersigned  is  particnlarly  induced  to 
make  this  inquiry,  by  having  receive^l^  from  Mr.  Yaughan,  a  copy  of 
the  communication  lately  addressed  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States  to  the  House  of  Representative!^,  of  that  part  of  Mr.  Rush's 
correspondence  of  last  year  which' relates  to  this  important  subject. 

The  undersigned  has  to  add,  that  the  British  Plenipotentiaries,  Mr» 
Hiiskisson  and  Mr.  Addington^  are  perfectly  prepared  to  enter  inta 
Gonferenc<)8  t(^ith  Mr.  King  thereupon ;  and  either  to  renew  the  pro- 
posal brotfglit.forward  by  Mr.  Huskisson  and  Mr.  Stratford  Canning,, 
in  their  conference  of  the  13th  of  July,  1824,  and  unanswered  ;  or  to 
bring  forward  another  ;  or  to  discuss  any  new  pro])ofm1  on  the  same 
subject,  which  may  be  suggested  on  the  part  of  the  Plc^nipotentiary  of 
the  United  States. 

The  undersigned  has  the  honor  to  renew  to  Mr.  Rufus  King,  the 
assurance  of  his  high  consideration. 

GEORGE  CANNING. 


RtJFUs  Kiifo,  Esq.  &c.  &c. 


t^r 


■■^. 


■    \ 
1  I? 


•  tl 


.•I 


."--:*•■»:,  • 


^. 


jt-k--  ^-'    ^-;-''^'.r^4'J 


[extract.] 

Mr,  Clay  to  Mr,  GaUafin.-— No.  5,_^  ' 

Department  OF  State,  y* 

._  •   Washington,  Z^d  Jane,  1826. 

(<  Mr.  Crook's  information  adds  but  little  to  what  was  previously 
possessed.  If  the  land  on  the  Northwest  Coast,  between  the  mouth  of 
the  Columbia  river  and  the  parallel  of  49,  be  bad,  and  therefore  we 
should  lose  but  little  in  relinquishing  it,  the  same  consideration  will 
apply  to  the  British.  The  President  cannot  consent  to  vary  the  line 
proposed  in  your  instructions  ;  and  I  think  when  you  come  to  examine 
them  in  connexion  with  the  late  note  transmitted  by  Mr.  King  from 
Mr.  Canning,  you  will  not  think  it  necessary." 


_%-> 


.*-, 


^  ■^■' 


"A*- 


-Si£<£m 


m 


[Doc.  No.  190.] 

JSxtmds  of  a  letter  [Mh.  6]  from  Mr,  Clat/t  Secretary  of  State*  to  Mr, 
Gallatin*  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  FUnipotentiary  U,  8. 
to  Great  Britain,  dated 

**  LilciNOTON,  9th  Mgust,  1826.  ^ 

<<Tour  letter,  under  date  at  New  York,  on  the  29th  of  June  last» 
having  been  duly  received  at  the  Department  of  State,  and  submitted 
to  the  President,  was  subsequently  transmitted  to  me  atJhis  place, 
and  I  now  have  the  honor  to  address  you,  agreeably  to  his  directions. 

He  is  very  desirous  of  an  amicable  settlement  of  all  the  points  of 
difference  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  on  just  prin- 
ciples. Such  a  settlement,  alone,  would  be  satisfactory  to  the  People 
of  the  United  States,  or  would  command  the  concurrence  of  their  Sen- 
ate.  In  stating,  in  your  instructions,  the  terms  on  which  the  Presi- 
•dent  was  willing  that  the  several  questions  pending  between  the  two 
GoverJiments  might  be  arranged,  he  yielded  as  much  to  a  spirit  of 
concession  as  he  thought  he  could  consistently  with  the  interests  of 
this  CQuntry.  He  is  especially  not  now  prepared  to  authorize  any 
stipulations  involving  a  cession  of  territory  belonging  to  any  State  in 
the  Union,  or  the  abandonment,  express  or  implied,  of  the  right  to 
navigate  the  St.  Lawrence,  or  the  surrender  of  any  territory  south  o( 
latitude  49  on  the  Northwest  Coast.  Adhering  to  these  restrictions, 
the  President  would,  in  other  respects,  be  willing  that  you  should  ex- 
ercise more  latitudein  the  conclusion  of  a  treaty  which  you  believe 
-would  be  acceptabll^o  the  People  of  our  country,  and  would  obtain 
the  constitutional  sanction.  Desirable  as  it  is  to  arrange  all  matters 
of  difference  betweien  the  two  countries,  it  is  much  better  that  they 
should  remain  unadjusted  than  be  settled  on  terms  disadvantageous  to 
the  United  States,  and  which  would  therefore  be  unsatisfactory  to  the 
People,  and  to  other  Departments  of  the  Government.  With  these 
observations,  the  motive  of  which  your  candor  will  enable  you  justly 
to  appreciate,  I  will  now  proceed  more  particularly  to  notice  the 
several  subjects  of  which  your  letter  treats,  in  the  order  in  which 
they  are  there  stated. 

II.  The  President  cannot  consent  that  the  boundary  between  the 
territories  of  the  two  Powers,  on  the  Northwest  coast,  should  be  south 
of  49.  *  *  *  *  There  is  no  objection  to  an  extension  of  the  time  to 
be  allowed  to  Bi'itish  settlers  to  remove  from  south  of  49,  to  a  period 
of  fifteen  years,  if  you  should  find  that  it  would  facilitate  an  arrange- 
ment." 


Extract  of  a  letter,  JVb.  18./ro?n  Mr.  Clay,  Secretary  of  State,  to  Mr. 
^■^  Gallatin,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  V.  8. 
to  Great  Britain,  dated 

24th  Fbbp  VARY,  1  ear. 

*<  Your  despatches  from  No.  26  to  48,  inclusive,  have  been  receiv- 
ed, together  with  the  accompanying  documents,  and  have  been  all 


m 


[Boc.  No.  199.] 


laid  before  tlte  President.  And  I  shall  now,  under  his  direction,  Com- 
municate to  you  such  instructions  as  appear  to  be  called  for,  by  the 
state  of  the  pending  negotiations  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  with  which  you  are  cMirged.  In  doing  tliis,  I  shall  take  up 
the  several  subjects  which  require  notice,  in  the  order  in  which  they 
have  been  considered,  in  the  conferences  which  you  have  had  with  the 
British  Plenipotentiaries,  beginning  with — 

1st.    The  Northwestern  boundary.  v 

As  there  seems  to  bo  no  prospect  of  an  agreement  at  this  time  upon 
a  permanent  boundary,  which  shall  separate  the  territories  of  the  two 
Powers  beyond  the  Stony  Mountains,  and  as  no  utility  is  perceived 
in  prolonging  the  discussions  which  have  arisen  on  that  subject,  I  shall 
abstain  from  any  particular  notice  of  tlie  written  statement,  annexed 
by  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  to  the  protocol  of  the  sixth  conference, 
of  the  claims  and  views  of  Great  Britain  relative  to  that  country.. 
New  and  extraordinary  as  those  claims  and  views  strike  us,  they  will, 
nevertheless,  receive  all  the  consideration  which  is  due  to  the  high  re- 
spect which  is  sincerely  felt  for  the  Government  of  Great  BHtain,  and 
to  the  official  and  deliberate  exhibition  which  has  been  made  of  theni. 
They  certainly  have  not  yet  produced  any  conviction  in  the  mind  of 
the  President,  of  the  validity  of  the  pretensions  brought  forwaiH^  nor 
raised  any  doubts  of  the  strength  and  solidity  of  our  own  title.  I  re- 
peat what  has  been  already  stated  in  your  general  instructions,  that 
the  offer  of  a  boundary  on  the  parallel  of  49°  was  made  in  a  spirit  of 
liberal  conce.ssion,  and  notwithstanding  our  beliUfthat  our  title  might 
be  satisfactorily  made  out  mush  further  north.  Supposing  Great  Bri- 
tain to  have  any  well-founded  claim,  if  there  be,  as  there  are  believed 
to  be,  no  other  Powers  than  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  who 
can  assert  rights  of  territorial  sovereignty,  between  42°  and  54*  40', 
there  can  be  no  equitable  division  of  the  intermediate  space,  but  an 
equal  partition.  Such  an  equal  partition  would  assign  about  the 
parallel  of  49°  as  the  comnion  boundary.  The  Pesident  regrets  that 
the  British  Plenipotentiaries  have  thought  proper  to  decline  the  pro- 
posal which  you  made  of  that  line ;  and  If  am  cliarged'by  him  to  direct 
you  to  communicate  the  expression  of  this  regret,  and  to  declare  that 
the  American  Government  does  not  hold  itself  bound,  hereafter,  in 
consequence  of  any  proposal  which  it  has  heretofore  made,  to  agree  to 
the  Hue  which  has  been  so  proposed  and  rejected,  but  will  consider 
itself  at  liberty  to  contend  for  the  full  extent  of  our  just  claims ;  which 
declaration  you  will  have  recorded  in  the  protocolof  one  of  your  con- 
ferences. .  Such  a  protest  you  have  already  made,  and  had  record€(t 
in  the  protocol  of  the  third  conference;  but  it  will  give  more  weight 
to  it.  to  have  it  stated  that  it  has  been  done  by  the  express  direction  of 
thej*resident. 

As  you  have  not  been  able  to  conclude  any  agreement,  fixing  a  per- 
manent boundary,  it  is  preferred  that  there  should  be  a  simple  renew- 
al of  the  third  article,  in  the  convention  of  1818,  without  any  other  al- 
teration than  that  whi(^h  ynu  proposed,  of  the  omission  of  the  clause  re- 
specting the  claims  of  other  Powers  ;  and  on  that  modification  you  will 
not  insist,  if  it  be  objected  to. 


rCoc.No.  199*] 


18 


The  second  article  in  the  projet  presented  by  the  British  Flenipo* 
ientiai:ies,  is  inadmissible.  Su  far  as  its  tendency  would  be  to  pre- 
vent the  United  States  from  exercising  acts  of  exclusive  sovereignty 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia,  it  wouU&be  contrary  to  their  rights,  as 
acknowledged  both  in  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  and  by  the  surrender  of 
that  place,  made  by  the  British  Government  in  consequence  of  that 
treaty,  it  is  also  objectionable,  because  it  does  not  define,  but  leaves 
open  to  disputation,  the  acts  which  might  be  deemed  4he  exercise  of  an 
exclusive  sovereignty.  And  it  has  been  properly  observed  by  you» 
that,  from  the  nature  of  our  institfitions,  our  rights  in  that  quarter 
must  be  protected,  and  our  citizens  secured  in  .their  In  wCul  pursuit^, 
by  some  species  of  government,  different  from  that  which  it  has  beeii 
or  may  be  the  pleasure  of  the  British  Government  to  establish.  The 
form  of  Territorial  Government,  is  that  which  is  most  approved  by 
our  experience ;  but  such  a  government  might  be  considered  incom- 
patible with  the  second  article,  if  it  were  agreed  to.  if  there  be  a 
simple  renewal  of  the  third  article  of  the  convention  of  1818,  Great 
Britain  will  have  abundant  security  in  the  good  faith  of  the  United 
States  for  the  fulfilment  of  all  its  stipulations  ;  and  you  will  therefore 
resist  the  adoption  of  the  second  article  in  the  British  projet,  if  it 
should^  even  render  you  unable  to  .come  to  any  agreement  for  the  re- 
newal of  the  provision  in  the  convention  of  1818. 

^ith  respect  to  the  assignment  of  certain  portions  of  the  Territory 
to  each  Power*, oyer<.yvhich  they  may  respectively  exercise  acts  of  ex- 
clusive sovereignt}i#ieaving  an  intermediate  debatable  space,  it  does 
not  appear  probable  that  suchoin  arrangement  as  would  be  satisfac- 
tory to  both  parties  can  be  made.  If,  for  example,  we  were  to  agree 
that  such  exclusive  sovereignty  might  be  exerted  by  the  United  States 
over  all  the  territory,  from  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  south,  to  the 
42d  parallel,  and  by  Great  Britain,  over  all  the  territory  from  49°  to 
54°  40',  the  intermediate  space  between  the  Columbia  and  49%  being 
common  to  both  parties,  a  larger  extent  of  territory,  would  be  assign- 
ed to  Great  Britain  than  io  the  United  States  ;  and,  in  the  end,  that 
which  was  thus  held  in  common^  would  probably  be  equally  divided 
between  the  two  parties,  as  the  only  equitable  mode  of  separating  it 
Such  a  division  would  place  the  common  boundary  line  south  of  the 
parallel  of  49°,  and  would  give  us  less  territory  on  the  Pacific,  than 
if  we  were  at  once  to  agree  to  an  equal  division  of  the  entire  upace 
between  42°  and  54°  40'.  If,  which  is  not  likely.  Great  Britain  would 
consent  to  the  exercise  of  exclusive  sovereignty,  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  over  the  whole  space  from  the  mouth  of  Columbia, 
south,  to  the  42°,  leaving  the  residue,  from  the  mouth  of  the  Colum- 
bia to  54°  40',  in  common,  as  is  provided  for  in  the  third  article  of  the 
convention  of  1S18,  we  should  be  willing  to  agree  to  such  astipulation. 

In  respect  to  the  duration  of  the  renewed  provision,  the  President 
prefers  that  it  should  be  fixed  for  the  same  term  of  ten  years,  which 
is  limited  in  the  Convention  of  1818.  But  if  the  article  in  regard  to 
this  subject  should  not  be  thrown  into  the  shape  of  a  separate  Conven- 
tion, but  should  be  inserted  in  the  same  Convention  which  regulates 


A 


■■■' 


:]• 


1  -: 


i'i 


14 


[Boc.  No.  199.] 


.  .i    .V 


our  commercial  intercourse  with  the  British  European  possessions, 
you  are  then  authorized  to  agree  that  the  whole  Convention  shall  con- 
tinue in  force  after  the  expiration  of  the  term  of  ten  years,  and  until 
one  party  shall  have  given  to  the  other  six  months'  written  notice  of 
his  desire  to  pat  an  end  to  the  Convention." 


■ft 


Mr.  Oallatin  to  Mr.  day-'-^o.  26. 


Hon.  Henbt  ClaY) 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington. 

London,  Abvcmftcr  16 /A,  1826.    \ 

Sir  :  The  pending  negotiations,  and  the  researches  the^f  render  ne- 
cessary, do  not  permit  me  to  communicate  more  than  a  brief  account 
of  what  it  seems  most  important  that  you  should  know  without  delay. 

The  negotiations  on  the  subject  of  the  convention  signed  o^  the  13th 
instant,  had  been  conducted  in  presence  of  Mr.  Canning,  and  rather 
with  him  than  with  the  British  Plenipotentiaries.  Yesterday,  15th, 
the  first  regular  conference  was  held  with  these  alone,  when  we  agreed 
to  take  up,  in  the  first  place,  the  subject  of  the  territorial  claimf  west 
of  the  Stony  Mountains.  The  British  Plenipotentiaries  staled,'  that 
the  last  proposal  having  come  from  Great  Britain,  and  being  one  of 
those  which,  at  the  close  of  the  negotiation  of  1924,  had  been  refer- 
red to  Wasliington,  they  now  expected  our  ans^i|r  to  that  proposal, 
and  that,  if  not  acceded  to,  I  would  JfO^ke  any  new  one  I  might  be  au- 
thorized to  offer.  I  answered,  that,  without  reference  to  any  point  of 
form,  1  was  prepared  to  say,  that  my  Government  could  not  agree  to 
the  boundary  line  proposed  by  Great  Britain  ;  but  that,  whilst  insist- 
ing on  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude,  I  was  authorized  to  modify  Mr. 
Rush's  proposal,  by  the  addition  of  a  condition  calculated  to  remove 
the  most  important  objection  of  Great  Britain  to  the  line  we  had  pro-^, 
posed ;  and  I  accordingly  offered  the  article,  of  which  a  copy  is  en<> 
closed,  and  which  has  been  taken  foj^  consideration  till  our  next  meet- 
ing. Tltis,  on  account  of  the  opening  of  Parliament,  has  been  appoint- 
ed for  the  22d  instant 

I  had  but  little  to  add  to  the  arguments  used  by  Mr.  Rush,  in  sup- 
port of  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  the  territory  in  question.  Mr, 
Baylies'  report  supplied  me  with  additional  arguments  in  opposition 
to  the  pretended  discoveries  of  Admiral  Drake  north  of  40*  or  4£*  of 
north  latitude.  I  pointed  out  the  discovery  of  Gray's  Harbor,  nojt^ 
improperly  called  '*  Whitbj's,"  north  of  the  Columbia  River,  oy  Cap- 
tain Gray,  referred  to  the  line  established  in  pursuance  of  tlie  treaty  of 
Utrecht,  and  niade  a  short  recapitulation  of  the  whole.  ^  But  what  it 
imports  you  most  to  know,  is  the  ground  on  which,  as  far  as  I  could 
understand  it,  Great  Britain  founds  her  jtrctcnsions. 

As  relates  to  discoveries,  they  refer  to  Meeres'  anil  Dixon's  voy- 
ages, to  prove  that  the  prior  right,  as  respects  the  Straits  of  Fuca 
and  Gulf  of  Georgia,  is  incoutcstibly  theirs,  several  English  vessels 


[Doc.  No.  199.J 


i» 


liaving  entered  them  befora  Captain  Gray  did ;  and  they  also  attempt 
to  lessen  his  discoveries  of  Gray's  Harbor,  and  of  the  mouth  of  the 
Columj>ia  river,  by  saying,  that  Captain  Meeres  had  previously  diii- 
covered  and  named  Cape  Shoal  water,  so'Hh  of  Gray's  Harbor,  Ca|)e 
Disappointment,  the  northern  entrancfir  of  Columbia  river,  and  De- 
ception Bay,  which  was,  in  fact,  just^dutside  of  the  said  entrance.  I 
state  the  facts  as  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  gave  them,  not  having 
had  time  to  verify  them.  The  inference  which  I  understood  them  to 
draw  was,  that,  so  far  as  the  United  States  and  British  discoveries 
could  constitute  a  title,  we  could  establish  none  along  the  sea  coast* 
north  of  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia-^the  whole  coast  having,  without 
reference  to  Drake's  or  Cook's  voyages,  been  explored  by  British 
navigators,  from  that  river  northwardly,  prior  to  the  date  of  any 
American  discovery. 

But  the  general  ground  /  ~sumed  by  the  British  Plenipotentiaries 
is,  that  the  mere  discovery,  without  occupancy,  constitutes  no  title. 
They  insist  that  the, United  States  have  not  any  right  to  the  sovereign- 
ty of  any  part  of  the  country  ;  and  I  understood  that  they  disclaimed 
any  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain;  although,  from  the  genei-al  tenor 
of  their  argument,  I  should  infer,  that  they  intend  ultimately  to  claim 
such  right  of  sovereignty,  with  I'espectto  the  settlements  of  their  sub-^* 
jects,  made  prior  to  the  convention  of  1 8 1 8.  '  ^^ 

The  whole  of  this  doctrine,  which  excludes  titles  derived  from  prior 
discovery,  and  substitutes  occupancy^  rests  on  the  Nootka  convention 
of  20tb  October,  1790,  betweeif^  Spain  and  Great  Britain.  By  the 
third  article  of  thaf'VKstrument,  it  was  agreed,  «  that  the  respective 
subjects  of  the  two  parties  shouliPliot  be  disturbed  or  molested,  either 
in  navigating  or  carrying  on  their  fisheries  in  the  Pacific  Ocean,  or 
in  the  South  Seas,  or  in  lanuing  on  the' coasts  of  those  seas,,  in  p/oces 
Twt  already  occupied^  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  their  commerce 
with  the  natives  of  the  country,  or  of  making  settlements  there. "  This 
agreement  is  made  subject  to  certain  restrictions  and  provisions,  .the 
only  one  of  which  applicable  to  the  preseiit  discussion  is,  that,  <<as 
well  in  the  places  which  are  to  be  restored  to  the  British  subjects, 
(Nootka  Sound)  as  in  all  other  parts  of  the  northwestern  coasts  of 
iNorth  America,  or  of  the  islands  adjacent,  situate  to  the  north  of  the 
parts  of  the  said  coast  already  occupied  by  Spain*;  wherever  the  sub- 
jects of  either  of  the  two  Powers  shall  have  made  settlements  since  tlie 
month  of  April,  1789,  or  shall  hereafter  make  any,  the  subjects  of 
the  other  shall  have  free  access,  and  shall  carry  on  their  trade,  with- 
out disturbance  or  molestation.*'  From  these  provisions,  the  British 
F)lnii)ot#itiaries  draw  the  following  inferences  : 

1.  ThiB  United  States  cannot  claim,  under  their  treaty  with  Spain/ 
any  greater  right  than  Spain  then  had  :  and,  as  the  Nootka  conven- 
tkih  has  no  reference  to  the  discoveries  of  either  paHyj  and  Is  unlimit- 
ed in  its  duration,  they  cannot  resort  to  any  Spanish  discovery  in 
support  of  their  presumed  title  to  any  parts  of  the  country. 

2.  As,  at  the  time  of  concluding  the  Nootka  convention,  Louisiana 
did  belong  to  Spain,  and  she  made  no  excepition  to  the  provisions  of 


!  I 


IH^I!  I 


'  I 


n 


!^  ■  ^ 


^ 


•      -  - 


ilh    i 


16 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


that  Gonvention,  on  account  of  any  presumed  boundaries  of  that  pror 
vince  having  been  established  by  former  treaties  with  Great  Britain, 
or  of  right  extending  to  the  Pacific,  the  United  States  cannot  claim 
any  Territory  on  that  ocean,  as  owners  of  Louisiana^  either  as  a  natu- 
ral extension  of  its  boimdaries  westwardly,  or  as  implied  from  the  de- 
signation of  the  boifndary  line,  (the  49th  parallel  of  latitude)  settled 
between  Canada  and  Louisiana,  on  the  one  part,  and  the  British  pos- 
sessions of  Hudson's  Bay,  on  the  other  part,  by  the  commissioners 
appointed  in  pursuance  of  the  treaty  of  Utredht. 

3.  This  convention  (the  Nootka)  must  be  considered,  generally, 
as  having  become  an  internatiortal  law,  at  least  for  the  Pacific,  su- 
perseded the  claims  ascribed  to  mere  prior  discovery,  set  aside  the 
exclusive  pretensions  of  Spain  to  the  northwest  part  of  the  American 
continent,  and  opened  it  to  the  commerce  and  settlements  of  all  coun- 
tries whatever,  including  the  United  States. 

4.  Actual  occupancy,  and  regard  to  mutual  convenience,  are,  there- 
fore, tlie  only  basis  of  any  arrangement  for  the  establishment  of  a 
boundary  for  the  partition,  between  the  only  Powers  having'  settle- 
ments or  laying  claims  thereto,  of  a  country  which  was^  heretofore, 
held  in  common. 

As  .neither  Meere*s  discoveries,  nor  the  Nootka  convention,  had 
been  mentioned  in  the  negotiation  of  1815,  as  that  convention  appear- 
.ed  to  have  been  only  diuded  to  in  that  of  1818  ;  and  as,  in  this  last, 
'the  objection  to  the  right  derived  from  discoveries  was  not  general, 
but  applied  only  to  the  circumstance  of  those  of  the  United  States, 
having  been  made  by  private  vesselsu  much  of  tile -argument  was  new 
to  me.  From  some  expressions  in  your  instructions,  Lam  led  to  infer 
that,  at  all  events,  it  is,  for  the  first  time,  brought  forth  in  so  distinct 
~a  shape,  and  have  thought  it  important  to  lay  it  before  you.  It  is  my 
intention  to  invite  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  to  commit  it  to  writing, 
at  least  in  an  informal  manner.  The  grounds  which  I  took  in  an- 
swer, and  on  which  I  intend  to  enlarge  at  the  next  conference,  will  be 
communicated  ^he:^eaftcr.  There  are,  indeed,  several  facts,  which 
must  be  previously  Investigated. 

Mr.  Huskisson,  amongst  the  reasons  for  taking  iipthat  subject  first, 
mentioned,  that  it  had,  for  several  sessions,  occupied  the  attention  of 
Congress,  and  that  it  was  not  possible  to  foi^see  the  effect  which  the 
measures  they  might  adopt  would  have  on  the  question,  and  on  the 
frien^y  relations  of  the  two  countries.  In  a  subsequent  part  of  the 
conversation,  he  said  that  the  joint  occupancy  would  cease  in  1828, 
unless  renewed,  and  the  removal  by  the  United  States  of  any  setUe- 
nient  mad6  by  British  subjects,  would  be  considered  as  an  act  oH^- 
Agression.  This  having  already  been  intimated,  ii:  the  course  of  the 
negutiatioi)  of  18^^,  I  asked  whether  bewould  consider  as  an  a£t  of 
aggression,  the  removal  of  such  British  subjects  from  Astoria,  6|B|lch 
other  of  our  settlements  as  were  directed  to  be  restqtred  by  the  treaty 
T)f  Ghent.  To  which  it  was  answered,  that  those  were  considered  as 
in  our  possession ;  and  Mr.  Addington  added,  that  the  British  had  re- 
moved from  Astoria  to  the  opposite  side  of  the  river,  where,  I  under- 
stood, iSkey  had  now  a  fort  called  "  Vancouver.*' 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


<t 


^v-  Mr.  Gallatin  to  Mr.  Clay. — No.  29.  c  •  • 

London,  25f A  JVor.  18£6. 
Hon.  Henrt  CiAY,  -,,,  j^i 

Secretary  of  State-f  Washington, 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  a  copy  of  the  protocol  of  the  first 
conference  with  the  British  Plenipotentiaries.  They  considered  the  re- 
fusal of  Mr.  Rush,  at  the  20th  conference  of  1824,  to  accede  to  their 
verbal  proposal  of  making  the  Columbia  river  the  boundary,  as  owing 
to  his  not  being  authorized  by  his  instructions  to  agree  to  it,  and  the  ar- 
ticle which  they  had,  at  the  23d  conference,  given  in  writing,  as  one 
of  the  subjects  referred  to  Washington,  according  to  the  25th  confer- 
ence. As  I  was  ready  both  to  reject  their  article  and  to  offer  the  new 
one,  it  appeared  of  no  importance  in  what  form  this  was  done.  Be- 
fore this  article  A  was  attached  to  the  protocol,  X  struck  out  the  words 
northwesternmostf  as  descriptive  of  McGillivrey's  river,  as  they  ap- 
peared as  inapplicable  as  those  northeasternmosty  used  in  the  article 
P,  proposed,  in  1824,  by  the  British  Plenipotentiaries.  This  alteration 
must,  therefore,  be  made  in  the  copy  of  the  article  already  forwarded. 

At  our  second  conference,  of  the  22d  instant,  tlie  British  Plenipo- 
tentiaries said  that  they  had  referred  to  their  Government  the  article 
offered  by  me,  and  that  they  were  not  yet  prepared  to  give  an  answer. 
A  general  desultory  conversation  ensued  on  the  subject,  in  the  course 
of  which  nearly  all  the  grounds  assumed,  and  objections  raised  on  both 
sides,  were  brought  forward,  but  not  thorouglily  discussed.  I  have  al- 
ready given  the  outlines  of  the  arguments  of  the  British  Plenipotien- 
tiaries,  and  will  now  state  mine. 

1 .  The  United  Slater  claimed  a  natural  extension  of  tlieir  territory 
to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  on  the  ground  of  contiguity  and  population,  which 
gave  them  a  better  right  to  the  adjacent  unoccupied  land,  than  could  be 
set  up  by  any  other  nation.  Tliis  was  strcngtiiened  by  the  jloctrine 
admitted  to  its  fullest  extent  by  Great  Britain,  as  appeared  by  all  her 
charters,  extending  tVom  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  to  colonies 
established  then  only  on  the  borders  of  the  Atlantic.  How  much  more 
natural  and  stronger  the  claim,  when  made  by  a  nation  whose  popula- 
tion extended  to  the  central  parts  of  the  Continent,  and  whose  domi- 
nions were  by  all  acknowledged  to  extend  to  the  Stony  Mountains  ? 
If  the  principle  assumed  by  Great  Britaifj  from  1580  to  1732,  as  relat- 
ed to  Atlantic  Colonies,  was  correct,  she  could  not  deny  its  applica- 
tion to  the  United  States,  now  owners  of  Louisiana.  The  boundary 
line  agreed  on  by  the  Commissionci-s  appointed  in  pursuance  of  the 
treaty  of  Utrecht,  (the  49th  p:\i'allel  of  latitude,)  though  falling  short 
of  what  might  be  claimed  by  the  United  States  on  other  grounds,  was 
offered  by  them,  and  must,  at  all  events,  be  binding  on  Great  Britain. 
That  line  was  indefiiiitc  ;  it  had  already  been  confirmed  to  the  Stony 
Mountains  ;  there  was  no  reason  wiiy  it  sliould  not  be  continued  as  far 
as  the  claims  of  both  parties  extended.  In  point  of  fact,  the  occupan- 
cy, cm  which  Great  IJritain  principally  relied,  was  solely  owing  to 
that  wcstwardly  extension  of  their  trading  settlements  of  Uudson'a 
hay  and  its  waters. 

•■    8  ..  ■      ;-,  j-n 


i 


.  t) 


Hi 


i» 


\ 


K      -    [Doc.  No.  199.] 


S.  fn  right  of  their  own  dlocoverios,  viz  :  the  mouth  of  Cdum- 
bia  river  by  Gapt.  Gray,  and  the  complete  exploration  of  the  rivet*, 
from  its  most  westerly  sources  to  its  mouth,  before  any  of  its  branches 
had  been  explored  by  the  British,  the  United  States  had  a  right  to 
claim  against  Great  Britain,  and  every  other  nation,  the  ^hole  territo- 
ry  drained  by  that  river  and  its  various  branches,  together  with  a  cer- 
tain portion  of  the  coast  north  and  south  of  the  mouth  of  the  river. 
In  tins,  also,  we  were  supported  by  the  established  usage  amongst  na- 
tionsy  and  adopted  by  Great  Britain  in  various  instances,  (and  amongst 
others,  in  her  charter  to  the  Hudson  Bay  Company,  which  charter  ex- 
tends to  all  the  territory  watei*ed  by  the  rivera  emptying  into  the  bay.) 

3.  By  virtue  of  their  treaty  with  Spain,  the  United  States  claimed 
all  which  Spain  might  have  lawfully  claimed  nortji  of  42  degrees  of 
latitude,  either  as  derived  from  Spanish  discoveries,  or  by  virtue  of 
rights  of  sovereignty  acknowledged  by  other  nations,  and  by  Great 
Britain  particularly.  On  the  last  subject,  I  did  not  dwell,  having  not 
yet  sufficiently  investigated  the  articles  of  the  treaty  of  Utracht, 
which  may  affect  that  question.  Ah  to  discoveries,  I  ga;^9  to  the  Bri- 
tish Pletiipotentiai'ieH  a  copy  of  the  same  extract  from  the  official 
Spanish  account  published  in  1802,  which  I  had  transmitted  from  Vm\^ 
to  the  Department  of  State,  in  the  despatch  No.  2j35,  dated  26th  Sep- 
tember, 1831.  That  Spanish  work,  which  1  could  then  only  borrow, 
I  have  now  found  here  and  purchased.  It  was  not  merely,  I  said,  by 
examining  each  of  those  grounds  separately,  that  the  claim  of  the  Unit- 
ed States  could  be  justly  ajipreciated.  To  each  of  them,  taken  by  it- 
self, objections  might  be  made,  tending  to  show  that  it  did  not  consti- 
tute a  complete  right  of  sovereignty.  Considered  together,  and  sup- 
porting each  other  as  they  did,  they  appealed  to  us  to  establish  our 
claim  on  the  most  solid  foundation.  But  our  never  having  refused  to 
agree  to  a  line  of  demarcation  with  Great  Britain,  was  a  sufficient 
proof  that  we  admitted  that  she  also  had  claims  which  deserved,  and 
to  which  we  paid  due  consideration.  It  was  on  that  account  that  the 
United  States  had  reduced  the  extent  of  their  own  to  the  boundary 
line  they  had  offered,  and  had  added  to  it  the  proposal  of  allowing  to 
British  subjects  the  free  navigation  of  the  Columbia  river^  Claiming 
themselves,  by  right  of  discovery  and  settlement,  they  allQwed  what 
was  due  to  Great  Britain  on  the  same  account,  and  all  that  she  could 
justly  claim  under  the  Nootka  Convention,  according  to  its  true  con- 
struction. But  they  could  not  admit  her  pretensions  to  the  extent  now 
set  up,  or  as  impairing  their  claim  within  the  boundary  (at  least)  of- 
fered by  them. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Nootka  Convention,  on  which  so  much  reli- 
ance was  put,  was  a  compact  «nly  between  Spain  and  Great  Britain. 
Whatever  construction  was  given  to  that  instrMmcjit,  it  could  affect  the 
United  States  so  far  only,  as  they  claimed  under  the  Spanish  title. 
Their  claim,  in  their  own  I'ight,  and  as  derived  from  their  own  dis- 
cttvei'ies  and  subswiuent  settlement,  could  not,  in  the  slightest  degree, 
be  affected  by  that  compact. 

But  what  was  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Nootka  Conven- 


»    ^ 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


19 


(a  CoiivfH- 


tioR  .  Though  not  limited  in  its  duration  by  any  express  stipulatiois 
it  was  necessarily  so  from  its  nature.  Though  the  settlements  which 
might  be  made  by  either  party  were  not  expressly  qualified  or  restrict- 
edf  it  was  evident  that  the  sole  object  of  the  Convention  was  com- 
merce,  and  commerce  with  the  natives ;  and  that  it  was  for  that,  and 
for  that  object  alone,  that  the  country  was  left  open  to  the  subjects  of 
the  two  contracting  Powers.  That  the  object  of  the  Convention  was 
itot  to  settle  the  territorial  claims  of  the  parties ;  that  it  has  no  con- 
nexion with  ^n  ultimate  partition  of  the  country,  or  with  its  coloniza- 
tion for  permanent  purposes — was  evident  from  the  provisions  of  that 
instrument.  It  permitted  promiscuous  and  intermixed  settlements  ev- 
ery where  on  the  coast,  to  the  subjects  of  both  parties,  and  it  even  made 
every  such  settlement,  made  by  either  party,  common  to  the  other. 
This  clearly  excluded  any  possibility  of  distinct  jurisdiction,  territo- 
rial rights,  or  sovereignty.  In  all  these  respects,  the  Convention  left 
the  parties  where  it  found  them,  and  in  possession  of  all  such  rights, 
either  of  discovery,  or  others,  as  might  aifect  those  questions,  when^- 
ever  that  of  permanent  and  separate  possession  came  to  be  discussed 
and  finally  settled  by  the  contracting  Powers. 

Supposing,  even  for  the  sake  of  argument,  tliatthe  Convention  was 
susceptible  of  the  construction  now  put  on  it  by  Great  Britain,  was  it 
now  any  longer  in  force  ?  The  war  between  her  and  Spain,  which  had 
been  terminated  by  the  treaty  of  1809,  had  intervened.  The  Ireaties 
of  commerce  between  the  two  countries  had  been  renewed  by  the 
treaty  of  July,  1814.  So  far  as  the  Nootka  Convention  was  of  a  com- 
mercial nature,  and  the  United  States  considered  it  as  exclusively  of 
that  character,  it  was  still  in  force.  But,  if  its  stipulations  were«  as 
contended  for  by  Great  Britain,  of  a  dilfekent  nature,  the  question 
would  arise  whether  they  were  such  as  to  be,  according  to  the  doctrine 
held  by  her  on  that  subject,  still  binding,  or  whether  they  had  been 
abrogated  by  the  war  ? 

To  this  exposition  of  the  Nootka  Convention,  the  British  Plenipo- 
tentiaries did  not  agree.  They  considered  its  principles  and  provi- 
sions as  permanent,^and  not  abrogated  by  war;  as  only  declaratory  of 
what  was  already  previously  the  natural  law ;  as  having  established 
this,  and  made  it,  in  an  incontrovertible  manner,  the  international  law 
on  that  subject.  Those  vague  claims  of  ancient  discoveries,  and  of 
distant  settlements,  on  which  Spain  had  founded  hers  to  the  exclusive 
sovereignty  of  the  whole  western  coast  of  America,  had  been  set  at 
rest  by  that  Convention.  In  order  to  resist  that  claim,  Great  Britain 
had,  in  1790,  been  willing  to  run  the  risk  of  a  war.  Not  for  her  ben- 
efit only,  but  for  that  of  all  nations,  she  had  contended  for  and  esta- 
blished that  principle  of  natural  law,  by  which  vacant  land  belongato 
the  first  occupant.  Under  this,  she  did  not  claim  exclusive  rights  of 
sovereignty  ;  she  only  denied  ours.  In  making  a  final  arrangement 
with  the  United  States,  she  considered  the  whole  country  as  still  open 
equally  to  both  parties,  and  to  be  divided  as  such,  and  onthatprinci* 
pie.  Of  this  we  had  no  right  to  complain,  since  she  might  plead  claims 
derived  from  occupancy  or  discoveries  to  a  much  greater  extent  than 
ourselves.    ';^       ••  ■•  '   •  •    «  ■■  •    -^^^  ;-  ■'  'u-i,---    >;-j=ijYn"^i  , 


Um 


i!li 


I'    I    "il 


'l! 


,1 


IP 


!l 


HI 

ill 


20 


.» >  • 


^S'-k 


:   I 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


I  observed  that  this  argument  was  less  luunded  on  the  positive  stip- 
ulations of  the  Nootka  Cuiivuntion,  tlian  on  a  recurrence  to  antecedent 
presumed  principles  of  natural  law.  But  the  answer  was  the  same  in 
either  case.  As  an  abstract  principle,  that  of  first  occupancy  being  the 
foundation  of  property  and  sovereignty  between  individuals  and  na- 
tions respectively,  might  bo  admitted.  But  it  was  not  sufficient  alone 
to  preserve  peace  amongst  them.  The  impossibility  of  reconciling 
the  general  right  of  promiscuous  and  intermixed  settlement  by  diflTer- 
ent  nations,  with  any  correct  notion  of  tranquil  possession  and  distinct 
jurisdiction,  had  already  been  mentioned.  It  was  on  that  account,  in 
order  to  prevent  otherwise  unavoidable  collision,  for  the  purpose  of 
assigning  to  each  nation  a  distinct  portion  of  vacant  territory,  that  the 
right  of  prior  discover^?,  that  of  contiguity  to  territory  already  occu- 
pied, that  of  extending  tlio  claim  of  a  nation  possessing  the  mouth  of 
a  river  to  the  whole  of  its  waters,  if  not  previously  occupied  by  others, 
had  been  recognized  by  nations  in  general,  and  enforced  by  Great 
Britain  hei-self.  As  the  arguments  brought  forward  by  each  party  on 
this  subject  were  unsatisfactory  to  the  other,  we  may  bo  considered  as 
at  issue  on  that  question. 

I  observed,  as  related  to  the  settlements  of  the  British  in  that  quar- 
ter: 1st,  That  those  made  subsequent  to  the  Convention  of  1818,  added 
nothing  to  the  claims  of  thp  British — the  rights  of  the  parties  having 
been  expressly  reserved  by  that  Convention,  which  allowed  of  a  joint 
occupancy.  2dly,  That  none  certainly  existed  on  the  Columbia  even 
so  late  as  at  the  time  when  that  river  was  explored  by  Lewis  and 
Clarke  ;  and  that  there  were  none  to  our  knowledge  south  of  the  49th 
degree  of  latitude,  when  our  settlement  of  Astoria  was  commenced. 
3dly,  That  those  British  settlements  were  factories  for  commercial 
purposes,  which  gave  no  more  permanent  territorial  rights  than  sim- 
ilar establishments  made  in  a  civilized  country.  No  notice  has  as  yet 
been  taken  of  that  observation.  Some  allusion  was  made  to  Indian 
purchases,  on  which  I  do  not  tliink  that  any  reliance  is  placed. 

The  dates  and  nature  of  the  respective  discoveries,  south  of  the  49th 
degree,  underwent  some  discussion.  In  reply  to  the  attempt  made  to 
lessen  the  merit  of  Captain  Gray's  discovery  of  the  Columbia  river,  I 
said  that  the  fact  of  the  coast  extending  from  42°  to  50°  being  once 
known,  (as  it  had  been  ascertained,by  Cook,  and  several  Spanish  navi- 
gators— Perez,  Maurclle,  Martinez,  Quadra,  &c.)  the  sole  object  of  dis- 
covery, for  subsequent  navigators,  was  the  entrance  of  straits,  or  of  a 
large  river  communicating  with  the  interior  of  the  country.  It  was 
what  Meeres  sought,  and  what  he  faiUd  in,  as  had  been  the  case  with 
Maurelle  and  others  of  his  predecessors,  and  as  was  also  the  case  with 
Vancouver,  who  had  in  his  journal  recorded  the  fact.  Meeres  had  given 
names  indicative  of  his  total  failure — Cape  Disappointment  and  Decep- 
tion Bay.  Under  date  of  28th  April,  lV92,  Vancouver  states  from  42* 
to  48°  there  was  no  large  river — nothing  but  small  brooks.  On  the  next 
day,  he  met  Capt.  Gray,  of  the  Columbia, who  informed  him  that  he  had 
discovered  the  mouth  of  a  large  river,  into  which  the  winds  and  cur- 
rents had  prevented  him  to  enter.  Persevering  in  his  effort,  Gray  re- 


[Doc.  No.  199.1  21 

-       •  'fat'..      .-;;V  vj 

turns  Houthwardly,  and,  on  the  1  Itii  May  fuUowing,  untera  the  river, 
and  ascends  it  about  25  miles.  On  his  return,  he  met  again  Vancou- 
ver, at  Nootka,  and,  with  that  information,  he  (Vancouver)  sent  one  of 
his  lieutenants  to  survey  the  river.  This  duty  was  performed  in  Oc- 
tober following  by  that  olHcer,  who  ascended  the  river  about  20  miles 
higher  up  than  Gray.  It  was  impossible  to  deny,  with  those  facts, 
that  the  discovery  was  Gray's,  and  exclusively  his  own.  The  only 
other  harbor  on  that  coast,  south  of  Fucu^s  straits,  >yas  alsoiliscover6d 
by  Gray,  and  bears  his  name  in  Vancouver's  map,  though  since  chang- 
ed into  Whitby's,  by  subsequent  English  map-makers,  whom  our  own 
have  copied  witli  great  servility.  And  here  permit  me  to  observe, 
that  I  cannot  see  the  policy  of  substituting  the  fabulous  name  of  Oregon 
to  that  of  Columbia,  which  was  that  of  Gray's  ship,  and  perpetuates 
his  discovery. 

The  next  most  important  discovery,  and  most  intimately  connected 
with  the  present  controversy,  is  tliAt  of  the  Straits  of  Fuca.  We  can- 
not draw  any  argument  in  our  favor  from  the  supposed  ancient  disco- 
very, (in  1592)  by  a  man  of  that  name,  said  to  have  been  in  the  Span- 
ish service.  The  whole  story  rests  on  the  foundation  of  an  English- 
man named  Locke,  who  is  said  to  have  met  at  Venice  that  Fuca,  a 
Greek  from  Ccphalonia,  who  gave  him  verbally  that  relation,  which 
has  been  printed  in  ancient  English  collections. — (Purches,  &c.)  Not 
only  the  greater  part  of  that  relation  is  certainly  fabulous,  for  it  states 
that,  in  3U  days,  he  reached,  by  sea,  Hudson's  bay;  but  the  Spanish  ac- 
count disclaims  any  knowledgeeither  of  Fuca,  or  of  any  such  voyage, 
although  it  gives  a  short  abstract  of  other  voyages  made  in  1592  and 
1603,  by  Vizcairo,  who  did  not  reach  further  than  Cape  Mendocino, 
and  about  43*  of  north  latitude.  The  facts  well  ascertained,  are  as 
followeth  : 

In  1778,  Capt.  Cook  discovered  Caiie  Flattery,  the  southern  en- 
trance of  the  straits,  which  he  did  not  perceive. 

In  1787,  Captain  Duncan,  in  the  British  ship  Princess  Royal,  en- 
tered the  Straits,  and  traded  at  the  village  of  Classrt,  on  the  south- 
ern shore,  and  within  two  miles  of  the  entrance. 

In  July,  of  the  same  year.  Captain  Meeres,  in  the  Fellice,  anchor-^ 
ed  at  Barclay,  in  Barclay's  Sound,  and  like  him,  sent  his  boat  in  the 
Straits,  which  he  ascended  about  30  miles,  (not  leagues  as  he  says.) 

In  the  same  year,  date  unknown,  but  it  is  said  subsequent  to  Meeres, 
the  same  Captain  Gray,  then  commanding  the  Washington,  entered 
the  Straits  with  his  vessel,  and  penetrated  50  miles  up.  He  went  in 
and  traded  with  the  natives  several  times  afterwards.  It  must  be  ob- 
served that,  respecting  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river,  wc  know  no- 
thing of  Gray's  discoveries,  but  thrpugh  British  accounts.  By  those 
it  appears,  that  he  had  also  made  some  between  54°  and  56"  of  north 
latitude. 

In  June,  1790,  Capt.  Quimpcr,  of  the  Spanish  navy,  explored  the 
Straits  as  far  as  Poiy.t  Quadra — (Vancouver's  Port  of  Discovery.) 

In  May,  June,  .and  July,  1791,  Capt.  Eliza,  of  the  Spanish  pack- 
et San  Carlos,  explored  the  Straits  as  far  as  the  channel  of  San  Ko- 
sario,  between  49*  and  50°  of  north  latitude. 


ili 

i 

i 


%2 


[Hoc.  No.  199.] 


)i>i 


In  Mayt  \792f  Vancouver  entered  the  Straits,  and  completed  tlie 
exploration,  partly  in  company  with  the  Spanish  vessels  8utU  and 
JVexicano,  with  whom  he  re-entered  the  Ocean  by  the  northern  en- 
trance of  the  Straits,  and  from  whom  he  learned,  with  mortiflcation, 
that  one  half  had  already  been  explored  in  the  preceding  years,  by 
Quimper  and  Eliza. 

You  will  perceive  that  all  this  makes  a  complex  case.  To  the  first 
discovery,  made  by  Barclay,  I  have  objected,  that  it  was  not  properly 
an  English  one,  as,  in  order  to  avoid  the  mono|K)ly  of  the  South  Sea 
Company,  his  ship,  though  English  property,  was  fitted  at  Ostend, 
and  must,  it  is  presumed,  have  sailed  under  the  Austrian  flag. 

There  was,  in  the  course  of  the  conversation,  more  susceptibility 
shown  by  the  British  Plenipotentiaries,  than  was  called  fur  by  my  ob- 
servations. That  the  United  States  had  no  right  to  dispossess  a  sin- 
gle British  subject,  or  in  any  way  to  exercise  jurisdiction  in  any  part 
of  the  territory  in  question,  was  again  repeated,  saying,  however,  that 
they  claimed  no  such  right  on  their  side.  I  said  that  i  thought  it  fair 
to  state,  that,  although  the  United  States  would  avoid  any  act  tending 
to  produce  collision,  yet,  as  from  local  position,  the  British  traders 
were  daily  making  new  settlements,  my  Government  would  also  take 
possession,  and  that  they  could  not  do  it  otherwise  than  by  establish- 
ing military  posts.  This  did  not  seem  to  me  to  appear  objectionable, 
at  least  no  objection  was  made  to  it.  On  the  subject  of  jurisdiction, 
we  must,  if  we  do  not  agr^e  to  a  boundary  line,  como  to  some  under- 
standing. ■»•       »'.  ■   '  .•  ' 

The  latter  part  of  our  conversation  was  of  a  more  conciliatory  na- 
ture. Mr.  Huskisson  said,  that  it  would  be  lamentable,  that,  in  this 
age,  two  such  nations  as  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  should 
be  drawn  to  a  rupture  on  such  a  subject  as  the  uncultivated  wilds  of 
the  Northwest  Coast.  But  the  honor  and  dignity  of  both  countries 
must  be  respected,  and  the  mutual  convenience  of  both  parties  should 
also  be  consulted.  He  then  objected  to  the  straight  line  which  we  pro- 
posed, as  having  no  regard  to  such  convenience,  and  observed  particu- 
larly, that  its  cutting  off  the  southern  portion  of  Quadra  and  Vancou- 
ver's Island,  (that  on  which  Nootka  Sound  was  situated)  was  quite 
inadmissible.  I  told  him  that,  taking  only  convenience  into  considera- 
tion, their  proposal  was  far  more  objectionable.  The  survey  of  the 
Columbia  River,  which  was  on  the  table,  had  the  soundings  marked, 
from  which  it  appeared,  that,  with  the  exception  of  a  small  harbor,  of 
vei'y  little  depth,  the  channel  was  for  15  or  20  miles  exclusively  close 
to  the  northern  shore,  so  as  to  give  to  the  British  the  whole  command 
of  the  entrance  and  navigation  of  the  river,  if  this  had  been  made  the 
boundary.  I  added,  that,  from  the  42d  parallel  of  latitude,  to  Fuca's 
Straits,  thei'e  was  not  a  single  port  of  any  consequence  but  the  mouth 
of  Columbia  River ;  and  that,  on  account  of  the  breakers  and  bar,  was 
of  difficult  access,  and  fitted  only  for  commercial  purposes.  By  allow- 
ing the  free  navigation  of  the  river  to  the  British,  we  gave  them  all 
the^  advantages  attached  to  that  port.  On  the  other  hand,  from  Fuca*s 
Straits,  inclusively,  to  the  Russian  boundary  line,  the  coast  abounded 
with  ports  of  any  depth,  and  fitted  for  naval  stations.     To  agree  to  a 


iitJ 


Xt 


•  i'^     »\>  r  ,•^■9 


[Doc.  No.  199.  J 


aa 


II  uV)    liL 


line  Uiat  would  leave  uU  ol  these  to  them,  would  be  glvinat  them  the 
exclusive  naval  command  of  the  coast.  It  was  impossible  that  wo 
would  agree  to  this ;  and  we  could  have  a  share  in  that  respect  only, 
by  a  boundary  line,  that  would  give  ua  a  portion  of  the  Straits. 

Writing  this  letter  in  gr-eat  liaste.  and  not  having  time  to  correct, 
I  may  not  have  stated  the  arguments  as  clearly  and  forcibly  as  might 
have  been  done. 

The  British  Plenipotentiaries  insisted,  that,  according  to  the  law 
of  nations,  as  acknowledged  by  all,  discovery  without  settlement  gave 
no  title,  and  that,  in  the  ancient  British  charters,  places  already  occu- 
pied by  other  civilized  nations  had  always  been  excepted. 

Whether  there  is  a  disposition  to  come  to  a  reasonable  agreement, 
is  yet  doubtful.  If  such  disposition  docs  exist,  there  will  still  be  two 
difficulties.  I  think  that  the  first,  their  insisting  on  a  more  conve- 
nient and  natural  line  than  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude,  may  be  obvi- 
ated by  their  adhering  to  that  line  only  as  a  basis ;  that  is  to  say,  by 
insisting  on  an  equivalent  north  of  the  line,  in  compensation  of  what, 
for  convenience  sake,  we  may  yield  south  of  it. 

The  other  difficulty  relates  to  the  restriction  on  the  right  of  navi- 
gating the  Columbia,  by  the  insertion  of  the  words  **  if  found  naviga- 
ble,*' kc.  The  British  will  say  they  arc  useless,  since  the  right  can- 
not be  enjoyed  if  the  river  is  not  navigable,  and  that  they  cuA  there- 
fore be  used  only  to  call  their  right  in  question,  even  though  the  river 
was  navigable.  But  what  is  meant  by  «  navigable  ?"  It  is  well 
known  that  the  navigation  of  the  main  Columbia  river  is  interrupted 
by  great  falls,  around  which  boats  are  generally,  if  not  always, 
carried  by  land.  As  it  was  certain  that  the  offi  r  made  by  the  Go- 
vernment of  the  United  States,  was  not  intended  as  nugatory,  I  took 
care  to  frame  the  article  so  that  those  falls  should  not  ue  enclosed  in 
the  restriction.  But  there  may  be,  for  aught  we  know,  falls  and 
rapids  in  the  branches  of  the  Columbia,  below  the  49th  degree,  such 
as  to  render  them  not  navigable  for  common  boats.  The  whole  navi- 
gation of  the  rivers  of  that  country,  above  tide- water,  except  per- 
haps on  the  main  river,  is  carried  on  by  the  British  traders  in  bark 
canoes,  to  which  such  falls  and  rapids  are  a  difficulty,  but  not  an  im- 
pediment, ^'oni  Lake  Superior  to  the  Pacific,  the  intercourse  is 
carried  on  in  ithose  canoes,  which  are  carried  around  the  portages.  It 
is,  indeed,  to  that  mode  of  conveyance,  that  the  British  are  exclu- 
sively indebted  for  the  extension  of  their  commerce  to  the  Western 
i^a.  They  have  all  that  is  necessary  for  it — the  species  of  birch 
Nvhich  does  not  grow  in  more  southern  latitudes,  and  Canadians  for 
canoe-men.  Tliey  will,  therefore,  object  to  any  restrictive  words, 
that  might  impede  what  is  the  ordinary  navigation  of  the  country. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c. 
,  ALBERT  GALLATIN. 


^'. 


27th. — Mr.  Uuskibuunhas  requested  that  uur  next  conference, 
which  had  been  fixed  for  Tuesday,  should  be  ])Ostponed  to  Friday,  Ist 
i)«cenibcr. 


I  • 


d4 


.  !■!, 


-"J  !! 


i 


I 


i^ 'il 

if 


1;   i;.' 


m 


I  i 


fi".' 


[Doc.  No.  190.] 

J/r.  Gallatin  to  J\Ir.  Clay. — JVo.  31. 

London,  Qd  December,  1826, 


Hon.  Hbnry  Clay,  v        *  -        ...        ."  ^ 

Secretary  of  Slate,  Washington. 

Sir  :  There  is  no  prospect  of  an  agreement  with  the  British  Gov- 
ernment, on  the  subject  of  a  boundary  line  west  of  the  Stony  Moun- 
tains. 

Our  third  conference  took  place  yesterday.  I  opened  it  by  some 
further  observations  on  the  true  meaning  and  effect  of  the  Nootka  ^on- 
.vention.  Considered,  which  it  really  is,  as  purely  of  a  commercial 
nature,  it  was  still  in  force  and  binding  upon  the  United  States,  so  far 
as  they  claimed  in  right  of  Spain.  If,  as  seemed  to  be  contended  by 
Great  Britain,  its  stipulations  extended  beyond  a  commercial  arrange- 
ment, the  question  would  arise,  whether,  since  they  had  not  been  re- 
newed, they  were  abrogated  by  war.  This  1  was  not  prepared,  and 
indeed  did  not  think  it  necessary,  to  discuss.  That  the  Convention 
had  no  other  object  but  to  recognise  a  freedom  of  commerce  with  the 
natives,  was  evident,  both  from  its  tenor  and  from  the  incident  out  of 
which  it  had  grown.  It  was  conced<\l,  that  the  promiscuous  settle- 
ments, common  to  both  parties,  which  might  be  made  in  conformity 
with  that  instrument,  were  incompatible  with  any  notion  of  distinct 
jurisdiction  and  of  sovereignty  ;  that  a  division  line,  a  partition  of  the 
country,  could  not  take  place  but  by  virtue  of  a  new  agreement.  It 
necessarily  followed,  that  the  Convention  had  stipulated  nothing  in 
that  respect,  and  that,  whenever  such  agreement  came  under  considera- 
tion, the  parties  might  claim  all  that,  according  to  the  law  and  usages 
of  nations,  they  had  a  right  to  claim,  in  the  same  manner  as  if  the 
Convention  had  not  taken  place.  To  that  law  and  usages,  as  not  hav- 
ing in  any  manner  been  abrogated  by  the  Convention,  the  United 
States  did  appeal,  both  in  their  own  right  and  in  the  right  of  Spain. 
Whatever  might  be  claimed,  either  as  a  natural  extension  of  Louisiana, 
or  under  the  arrangement  made  in  pursuance  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht, 
or  by  virtue  of  the  f-rst  discoveries  of  Spain,  the  United  States  had 
now  as  much  right  to  claim  as  what  they  considered  theirs  by  virtue 
of  their  own  discoveries.  These  arguments  were  neither  admitted 
nor  refuted  by  the  British  Plenipotentiaries. 

They  spoke  in  general  terms  of  the  right  of  Great  Britain  to  make 
settlements  any  wliere  nortii  of  the  38tl»  parallel  of  latitude,  and  to 
the  navigatimi  of  all  the  rivers  emptying  into  the  Pacific,  north  of  that 
latitude.  And  they  took  occasion  to  animadvert  on  the  condition  upon 
whicli,  by  the  article  1  had  ])ropose(l,  the  right  to  navigate  the  Colum- 
hia  was  made  to  depend  :  a  ( ondition  which  would  he  inadmissible, 
even  if  thev  were  to  receive  the  pi'iviiegc  as  a  grant,  instead  of  its 
being  a  right  already  belonging  to  Great  Britain. 

In  answer  to  that  special  objection,  I  said,  that,  if  the  right  to  navi- 
gate the  river,  contcm|)Iuted  by  the  article,  had  been  confined  to  tlie 
navigation  from  the  49th  degree  of  latitude  to  tide  water,  the  condi- 
tion wouM  have  been  unnecessary,  since  the  British  actually  navigat- 
ing the  risei',  would  have  been  a  complete  protif  that  it  was  navigable. 


[Doc.  No.  liW.] 


3S 


But  it  was  contemplated  by  the  article,  that  they  should  have  also 
tlie  free  navigation  of  the  river  from  and  to  the  sea.  This  was  in- 
tended for  the  special  and  sole  purpose  of  giving  tliem  an  uninter- 
rupted water  communication  between  the  upper  branches  of  the  river, 
north  of  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude,  and  the  sea.  If  the  condition 
complained  of  was  omitted,  they  would  have  an  absolute  right  (and 
without  any  reciprocity  within  the  British  territories)  to  navigate  the 
river  in  ships  from  tide  water  to  the  sea,  and  vice  versa,  although  its 
upper  branches,  from  the  49th  degred  downwards,  should  not  be  navi- 
gable, and  the  water  communication  above  stated  should  not  exist.- 
It  was  not  the  intention  of  the  United  States  that  they  should  have 
that  right  in  titat  case ;  and,  therefore,  the  condition  was  annexed.  If 
the  expressions  used  in  the  article  were  susceptibh  of  doubt,  or  liable 
to  any  well-founded  objection,  a  different  phraseology,  consistent  with 
the  avowed  object  of  the  article,  might  be  adopted.  Although  I  an- 
ticipated, from  the  manner  in  which  the  subject  was  introduced,  that 
this  explanation  would  produce  no  effect,  1  deemed  it  necessary,  in 
order  to  shr>w  how  far  the  offer  went,  and  that  it  was  perfectly  fair.    ; 

Mr.  Huskisson  then  asked  mu,  whether  I  was  authorized  to  deviate- 
from  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude  as  a  boundary  ?  I  did  not  think  that 
he  had  any  right  to  ask  the  question  ;  but  at  it  was  only  from  courte- 
sy, and  to  avoid,  at  the  opening  of  the  negotiation,  expressions  at  all 
savoring  of  harshness,  that  I  had  used  the  words  <<  whilst  insisting  on 
the  49th  degree,''  instead  of  the  word  *<  ultimatum,"  and,  as  in  fact 
the  United  States  had  nothing  to  conceal,  I  answered  the  question  : 
To  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude  the  United  States  would  adhere  as  a  ' 
basis.     If,  on  account  of  the  geographical  features  of  the  country,  a  ' 
deviation  founded  on  mutual  convenience  was  found  expedient,  a  pro- 
posal to  that  effect  might  be  entertained,  provided  it  was  consistent ' 
with  that  basis  :  that  is  to  say,  that  any  deviation  in  one  place  to  the 
south  of  the  49th  parallel,  should  be  comperisated  by  an  equivalent  in 
another  place  to  the  north  of  that  parallel.     *        *        *        * 
I  added,  that  if,  as  I  presumed  from  the  question,  the  British  Plenipo- 
tentiaries intended  to  make  a  new  proimsal,  it  was  only  after  it  was 
made  that  I  could  give  a  more  specific  answer,  either  accept  it,  refer 
it  to  my  Goviernment,  or  reject  it  at  once.  > 

After  .1  short  consultation  between  the  British  Plenipotentiaries,  > 
Mr.  Huskisson  said,  that,  when  speaking  of  the  line  without  reference 
to  right,  but  only  to  convenience,  I  had  observed  that  the  boundary 
proposed  by  Great  Britain,  left  to  the  United  States  but  one  seaport, 
and  that  of  difliculi  access,  and  fitted' only  for  commercial  purposes  ; 
and  that,  thinking  that  remark  entitled  to  consideration,  the  British 
Government  was  disposed  to  offer  us  a  port  in  Fuca*s  Straits.  Taking 
then  Vancouver's  map,  he  p<>irited  out  the  line  traced  in  the  enclosed 
sketch,  ofTcring  to  the  United  States  the  detached  territory,  bounded 
on  the  west  by  the  ocean,  on  the  north  by  Fuca's  Straits,  on  the  east 
by  the  entrance  of  Admiralty  Inlet,  and  then  by  the  Peninsula  be- : 
twecn  that  and  Hood's  Inlct^  and  on  the  south  by  a  line,  drawn , thence 
to  Gray's  Hatbor,  w\  Ihe  orean.     And  he  dwelt  dn  the  cxceltipnce  of 


t'\ 


■ll 


*'! 


!; 


S6 


[Doc.  No.  190.J 


Port  Discovery^  defended  by  Protection  Island,  wliicli  would  thus  Be 
secured  to  us.  On  my  asking  how  he  meant  that  the  line  should  run 
in  other  respects,  he  answered  that,  with  that  exception,  the  British 
Government  adhered  to  the  boundary  proposed  in  1824,  viz  :  the  Co- 
lumbia river ;  although  it  might,  perhaps,  be  agreed  that  the  northern 
shore,  for  some  distance  from  the  mouth  of  tl\e  river,  should  remain 
unoccupied  by  both  parties.  I  said  that  this  pl'oposal  did  not  admit 
even  of  discussion,  as  to  its  details,  as  the  principle  was  inadmissible ; 
that  I  rejected  it  at  once,  and  would  think  it  inconsistent  with  my  in- 
structions even  to  take  it  for  reference  to  my  Government. 

The  British  Plenipotentiaries  said,  that,  since  it  was  evident  that  we 
could  not  agree  to  a  boundary  line,  nothing  remained  but  to  continue 
the  joint  occupancy  for  another  period  of  time.  To  this  course  I  ex- 
pressed  my  assent,  and  some  general  conversation  ensued  on  the  dan- 
gers arising  from  collisions  between  the  traders  or  settlers  of  the  two 
countries,  or  from  acts  of  either  Government  assuming  exclusive  ju- 
risdiction. 1  undei*stood  it  to  be  the  opinion  of  the  British  Plenipo- 
tentiaries, that  there  could  be  no  objection  to  the  establishment  of 
military  posts,  or  to  a  jurisdiction  confined  by  each  Power  to  his  own 
citizens  or  subjects  ;  and  that  any  outrages  committed  by  eitlier  such 
citizens  or  subjects  on  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  tlie  other  nation,  ought 
not  to  be  considered  as  national  acts  of  aggression,  unless  authorized 
by  Government.  They  alluded  to  the  attempt  of  the  establishment  of 
a  Territorial  Government  which  had  been  made  in  Congress,  as  con- 
trary to  the  spirit  of  the  existing  agi*eement ;  although  they  declared 
that,  if  they  established  a  colony  any  where,  they  must  give  it  some 
form  of  Government.  And  they  spoke  of  the  necessity  of  modifying 
the  article  heretofore  agreed  on,  and  still  in  force,  on  the  subject  of  that 
joint  occupancy.  It  was  concluded  that  they  should  prepare  an  article 
in  conformity  with  their  own  view  of  the  subject,  which,  if  insisted 
upon,  and  substantially  differing  from  the  present  one,  must  of  course 
be  referred  to  the  President's  decision.  I  think  that  it  would  be  more 
eligible  to  continue  simply  the  present  article,  leaving  it  to  each 
Government  to  make,  through  the  usual  channels,  such  communica- 
tions to  the  other  as  it  may  deem  proper,  on  what  would  be  consist- 
ent with,  or  infringing  the  agreement.  But  I  can  say  nothing  positive, 
until  1  have  seen  the  article  they  mean  to  propose. 

I  have  the  honor,  &c.  '  ' 

ALB£RT  GALLATIN. 


■■«* 


\i 


[extract.] 

Mr,  Oallatin  to  Mr,  Clay, 

London,  Sth  Decemhery  1826. 
«<  Sir  :  I  enclose  the  draft*  of  the  Convention  which  the  British  Ple- 
nipotentiaries propose  on  the  subject  of  a  continued  joint  occupancy  of 

*  See  this  draft  following  the  protocol  of  6th  conference. 


V" 


LBoc.  No.  199.3 


37 


the  territory  west  of  the  Stony  Mountains.  Mr.  Addington  sent  it 
to  me  yesterday  for  inspection,  prior  to  our  conference,  which  takes 
place  to-morrow,  and  the  result  of  which  cannot  reach  you  by  this 
packet.  In  returning  it,  I  apprized,  in  a  private  note,  Mr.  Adding- 
ton of  the  necessity  under  which  I  would  be  of  referring  the  subject  to 
my  Government,  if  it  was  deemed  necessary  by  the  British  Plenipo- 
tentiaries to  insert  new  stipulations.  I  also  gave  him  notice  that  I 
would  object  to  their  second  proposed  article. 

'*  It  must  always  be  kept  in  mind  that  Great  Britain  insists  that  the 
whole  country  west  of  the  Stony  Mountains  is  a  vacant  territory,  to 
W  which  no  nation  has  any  exclusive  right,  which  is  open  to  all,  and  to 
'$  which  a  title  may  be  acquired,  and  can  only  be  acquired,  by  actual  oc- 
cupancy and  settlement.  The  second  article  in  question  is  intended, 
not  only  to  prevent  the  establishing  of  a  Territorial  Government  by 
the  United  States,  but  also  to  establish  the  general  doctrine  that  no 
exclusive  sovereignty  or  dominion  can  be  assumed  or  exercised  over 
any  part  of  the  country,  in  its  present  situation,  and,  l^y  implication, 
that  a  concurrent  jurisdiction  may  be  exercised  sufficient  to  preserve 
order  among  the  traders. 

"  With  a  view  to  prevent  another  inference  of  the  same  nature,  I  in- 
tend to  propose  that  so  much  of  the  article  now  in  force  as  relates  t0 
other  foreign  nations,  should  be  struck  out.  In  our  view  of  the  sub- 
ject, that  provision  referred  only  to  Spain  and  Russia,  as  the  only  na- 
tions which,  besides  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  could  possi- 
bly have  any^claim^to  any  part  of  the  country  ;  and  the  claims  of  both 
are  now  settled.  According  to  the  British  doctrine,  the  article  must 
stand  as  it  is,  since  they  declare  that  every  nation  has  an  equal  right 
with  ourselves  to  make  settlements  there.  Still,  as  my  instructions 
contemplate  a  simple  renewal  of  the  article,  I  will  not  insist  on  that 
amendment.  For  the  same  reason,  and  thinking  it  very  difficult  to 
find  any  general  stipulation  to  which  botli  parties  would  agree,  be- 
yond what  is  contained  in  the  existing  article,  I  will  try  to  have  it 
done  in  that  way,  leaving  any  subsequent  arrangement  to  depend  on 
Executive  regulations.  If  it  should  be  found  impossible  to  renew  the 
article  without  some  additional  stipulation,  none  has  presented  itself 
tolny  mind  better  calculated  to  preserve  peace,  and  to  enable  us  to 
acquire  a  good  footing  in  the  country,  than  the  adoption  of  the  second 
proposed  article,  but  limited  to  the  country  contained  between  the 
forty-ninth  parallel  and  the  boundary  insisted  on  by  the  British.  This 
would  be  more  favorable  to  us  than  any  temporary  line  (beyond  which 
settlements  should  not  be  made)  to  which  the  British  would  be  likely 
to  agree. 

« I  apprehend  some  difficulty  in  settling  the  protocol  of  our  last  con- 
ference. From  the  manner  in  which  the  offer  of  a  detached  Territory, 
south  of  FucaVs  Strait,  was  made,  I  anticipated  that  it  was  intended 
as  informal.  I  might  have  had  it  committed  to  writing,  by  pretend- 
ing an  intention  to  take  it  into  consideration  ;  but  this  was  so  incon- 
sistent with  the  spirit  of  my  instructions,  and  the  proposal  was  so  ob- 
viously inadmissable,  that,  as  already  stated,  I  declared  that  I  could 


I,  f 


18 


[Doc.  No.  19d.] 


not  refer  it  to  my  Government.  I,  therefore,  expected  that  it  woul  I 
not  be  inserted  in  the  protocol ,  but,  in  a  draft  of  this  sent  to  me,  b  >■ 
the  British  Plenipotentiaries,  they  propose  that  it  sfaould.be  stated  that 
they  had  declined  making  any  new  proposal.  I'o  this  I  cannot  assent, 
as  th«;re  is  a  material  difference  between  omitting  to  insert  a  fact,  and 
a  positive  assertion  in  the  protocol  that  no  such  fact  had  taken  place." 


in  .••■ 


fh 


!v 


.V 


|-'  '        [extract.] 

(  .•  ^{  •  Mr.  Qallatin  to  Mr,  Clay. 

London,  \Zth  DecemhtTf  l%2%, 

<<SiR  :  We  have  had  two  conferences,  (the  4th  and  5th)  on  the  6th 
and  Uth  ^nstant,  respectively.  The  British  Plenipotentiaries  having 
concluded  to  insert  in  the  protocol  of  the  third  conference,  the  offer 
they  had  made  of  a  detached  Territory  south  of  B'uca's  Straits,  thaC 
protocol,  though  agreed  on  yesterday,  is  not  yet  signed.  Our  fourth 
conference  was  principally  employed  in  a  discussion  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  joint  occupancy  mjist  be  understood.  The  aifticle  informally 
proposed,  and  of  which  1  sent  you  a  copy,  has  received  some  modifica- 
tions originating  with  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  ;  and  they  would 
have  been  ready  to  deliver  it  yesterday,  but  said  they  wished  it  to  be 
accompanied  by  an  exposition  of  their  claim,  and  view  of  the  subject. 
This  they  expect  to  be  prepared  to  annex  to  the  protocol  of  our  next 
conference,  on  the  16th  instant,  which  will,  I  hope,  enable  me  to  send 
you  by  the  packet  of  the  24th,  all  the  protocols,  and  whatever  relates 
to  the  Territory  west  of  the  Stony  Mountains.  You  know  already 
that  the  negotiation  for  a  permanent  boundary,  has  terminated  with- 
out our  being  able  to  agree.  The  questions  which  will  be  referred  for 
the  President's  decision,  relate,  exclusively,  to  the  joint  occupancy ; 
whether  it  shall  be  continued,  and,  if  continued,  whether  any,  and,  if 
any,  what,  explanatory  or  new  provisions  may  be  necessary.     The 

Proposals  will  come  exclusively  from  the  British  Plenipotentiaries,  as 
declared  that  I  was  not  authorized  to  make  any.  I  suggested,  in 
the  course  of  the  conversation,  as  coining  from  myself,  which  was 
true,  whether  each  Power  might  not  be  allowed  to  exercise  exclusive 
sovereignty  over  a  certain  extent  of  Territory,  leaving  between  them 
a  kind  of  border  or  debatable  ground,  where  promiscuous  settlements 
might  be  continued  until  a  permanent  boundary  was  agreed  on.  But 
the  suggestion  was  not  entertained  by  the  British  Plenipotentiaries." 


*       ,  ,,,  ']  J/r.  QaUatin  to  J\ir.  Clay,  -  -  >  - 

'      r  '      hovDoy,  toth  December,  IQ&6. 

Sir  :  The  protocol  of  the  first  conference  with  the  British  Plenipo- 
tentiaries, and  the  proposed  article  annexed  to  it,  have  been  already 
transmitted.    I  have  now  the  honor  to  enclose  the  protocols  of  the  six 


Hi 


[Iloc.  Ko.  199.] 


A9 


following  conferences;  theprojetof  a  Convention  for  the  continuance 
of  the  joint  occupancy  of  the  territory  west  of  the  Stony  Mountain?* 
presented  by  the  British  Plenipotentiaries,  and  annexed  to  the  iitxtii 
protocol;  their  statement  of  the  claims  and  views  of  the  British  Go- 
vernment  annexed  to  the  ^^une  protocol,  and  my  counter-statement 
annexed  to  the  seventh. 

The  negotiation  for  agreeing  to  a  definite  boundary  line  in  that 
quarter  has,  for  the  present,  failed,  and  may  be  considei-ed  as  tjmni- 
nated.  What  relates  to  it,  is  included  in  the  first,  second,  third,  and 
seventh  protocols,  so  much  of  the  sixth  as  refers  to  the  statement  i^n- 
iiexed  to  it,  the  American  article  annexed  to  the  first,  and  the  state- 
ments annexed  to  the  sixth  and  seventh,  respectively.  i 

The  arguments  used  on  both  sides  being  embodied  in  those  two 
statements,  I  beg  leave  to  refer  to  them,  and,  for  the  progress  of  tiie 
negotiation,  to  the  protocols  and. to  my  former  despatches.  You  will 
be  pleased  to  observe  that  there  is  a  difference  between  the  boundaries 
of  the  detached  territory  offered  by  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  at 
the  third  conference,  as  delineated  in  the  rough  sketch  already  trans- 
mitted, aind  those  described  in  the  protocol. 

The  negotiation  for  a  continuance  of  the  joint  occupancy  is  .not  yet 
terminated,  and  its  progress  jmay  be  traced  in  the  fourth  and  part  of 
the  sixth  protocol.  I  would  not  have  insisted  on  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  me  at  the  fourth  conference  to  the  article  now  in  force,  as  I 
would  have  thought  it  sufficient  to  enter  on  the  protocol  that  the  article 
was  agreed  to,  with  the  understanding  that  it  was  not  to  be  construed 
as  an  admission,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  that  any  other  fo- 
reign country  had  now  a  right  to  any  part  of  the  territory  in  question. 
But  I  could  not  agree  to  any  additional  or  explanatory  article  without 
the  previous  apprabation  of  my  Government;  and  you  will  see,  by  my 
declaration  in  the  fourth  protocol,  that  the  whole  subject  is  referr^^ 
to  the  President  u 

The  first  question  is,  therefore,  whether  there  is  any  advantage  in 
a  renewal  and  continuance  of  the  joint  occupancy ;  and,  if  so,  for 
what  term  ?  The  British  Plenipotentiaries  propose  fifteen,  would 
prefer  twenty,  and  will  agree  to  ten  years.  The  next  question  relates 
to  the  additional  conditions,  which  they  consider  as  explanatory  of, 
and  in  conformity  with,  the  original  agreement;  only  they  observed, 
that,  as  we  had  no  settlements,  the  last  condition  was  to  our  advantage. 
It  is  doubtful  to  me,  whether  it  is  proposed  in  order  to  prevent  .any 
inference  being  drawn  in  support  of  our  claim  to  exclusive  sovereign- 
ty from  the  former  settlement  at  Astoria,  or  whether  to  establish 
clearly,  and  to  impress  on  their  subjects,  that  Great  Britain  neither 
now  nor  hereafter  means  to  claim  such  exclusive  sovereignty.  Mr. 
Husliisson,  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,  several  times  repeated  that 
there  was  no  intention  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  to  colonize  the 
country.  They  have  certainly  no  other  immediate  object  than  that  of 
protecting  the  Northwest  Company  in  her  fur  trade.  #  #  *  # 
»***###  You  will  decide  whether  this  last  condition 
is,  on  the  whole,  for  our  interest  or  not     Although  I  cannot  sp^^ 


■/'\    '. 


M 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


^l     i- 


B:'i;! 


I!    I 


'I' ,' 


!  positively,  I  do  not  think  that  it  would  be  adhei'ed  to  on  the  pai*t  of 
Great  Britain,  if  you  object  to  it. 

With  respect  to  the  first  condition,  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  hex 
sitated  whether  the  word  "exclusive"  should  remain  or  not.  As  they 
appeared  indiflTerent  or  doubtful  about  it,  I  advised  that  it  should  re- 
main for  your  consideration*.  The  first  question  is,  what  is  meant 
thereby  ? 

The  right  of  exercising  sovereignty,  provided  it  is  not  exclusive, 
will  remain  with  each  party,  and  by  that  it  is  intended  that  each  should 
have  jurisdiction  over  its  own  citizens  or  subjects,  and  have  a  right  to 
punish  offences  committed  by  them.  The  establishment  of  military 
|)osts,  provided  they  do  not  command  exclusively  the  mouth  of  the 
Columbia,  is  not  objected  to.  Any  imiiedimenl  to  the  free  navigation 
of  harbors  and  rivers,  the  laying  of  duties,  or  establishment  of  any 
custom-house,  the  removing  or  disturbing  of  any  British  settlement, 
and  the  exercise  of  any  jurisdiction  over  British  subjects,  would  be 
considered  as  infractions  of  the  condition.  But  it  miist  be  observed, 
that  they  would  be  equally  considered  as  infractions  of  the  existing 
<  article,  without  the  additional  condition,  and  as  acts  of  aggression,  if 
the  joint  occupancy  is  not  continued  by  a  Convention.  And  it  is  in 
that  sense  that  you  must  understand  the  words  that  **  Great  Britain 
will  give  protection,"  &c.  in  the  latter  part  of  the  statement  of  her 
claims  and  views.  It  \v^a  also  to  those  expressions,  thus  understood, 
that  I  alluded  in  the  counter  statement,  in  saying  that  there  were  cer- 
tain parts  of  the  statement  on  which  I  would  make  no  remarks,  and 
which  I  must  refer  to  m^  Government.  The  establishment  of  a  dis- 
tinct Territorial  Governtnent  on  the  west  of  the  Stony  Mountains, 
would  also  be  objected  to,  as  an  attempt  to  exercise  exclusive  sove- 
reignty. I  observed,  that,  although  the  Northwest  Company  might, 
from  its  being  incorporate^,  from  the  habits  of  the  men  they  employ- 
ed, and  from  having  a  iWnopoly  with  respect  to  trade,  so  far  as  Bri- 
tish subjects  were  concerned,  carry  on  a  species  of  government,  with- 
out the  assistance  of  that  of  Great  Britain.  It  was  otherwise  with 
us.  Our  population  there  would  consist  of  several  independent  com- 
panies and  individuals.  We  had  always  been  in  the  habit,  in  our  most 
remote  settlements,  of  carrying  laws,  courts,  and  justices  of  the 
peace  with  us.  There  was  an  absolute  necessity,  on  our  part,  to  have 
some  species  of  government.  Without  it,  the  kind  of  sovereignty,  or 
rather  jurisdiction,  which  it  was  intended  to  admit,  could  not  be  exer- 
cised on  our  part.  It  was  suggested,  and  seemed  to  be  acquiesced  in, 
that  the  difficulty  might  be  obviated,  provided  the  erection  of  a  new 
.Territory  was  not  confined  exclusively  to  the  territory  west  of  the 
mountains ;  that  it  should  be  defined  as  embracing  al!:  ^In^  possessions 
of  the  United  States  west  of  a  line  that  should  be  at  some  distance 
from,  and  east  of,  the  Stony  Mountains. 

It  appeal's,  from  all  that  has  passed  during  the  discussion,  that  the 
important  point  is  to  agree  on  the  acts  which  may  or  may  not  be  dune 
during  the  joint  occupanc;, .  All  those  which  have  been  thought  of  as 
likely  to  occur,  are  stated  in  this  letter,  andtothoselbegleaveto  call 


on  the  paH  of 

ipotentiaries  hei 

r  not.    As  they 

lat  it  should  re- 

\^hat  is  meant 

i  not  exclusive, 
hat  each  should 
have  a  right  to 
5nt  of  military 
B  mouth  of  the 
free  navigation 
shment  of  any 
ish  settlement^ 
3cts,  would  be 
it  be  observed, 
af  the  existing 
aggression,  if 

And  it  is  in 
Great  Britain 
tement  of  her 
is  understood, 
lere  were  cer- 
remarks,  and 
nent  of  a  dis- 
y  Mountains, 
^elusive  sove- 
™pany  might, 
they  employ- 
10  far  as  Bri- 
nment,  with- 
lerwise  with 
tendent  com- 

in  our  most 
tices  of  the 
lart,  to  have 
ereignty,  or 
not  be  exer- 
quiesced  in, 
n  of  a  new 
west  of  the 
possessions 
me  distance 

m,  that  the 
nut  be  done 
ought  of  as 
Pave  to  call 


[Doc.  No.  199.J 


•1 


your  attention.  What  are  those  in  which  you  agree  with  the  British  . 
Plenipotentiaries  ?  What  are  those  you  object  to,  deridedly  ?  When 
agreed  on  those  points,  the  expi'efsions  which  may  be  used,  and  whi^h, 
after  all,  must  always  be  generate  become  less  important.  The  ques. 
tions  respecting  those  acts  must,  at  all  events,  be  decided ;  as  in  the 
•vent,  either  of  a  simple  renewal  of  the  existing  article,  or  of  no  agree- 
ment whatever  being  made  on  the  subject,  they  will  still  occur  when- 
ever our  citizens  or  troops  cross  the  mountains.  I  beg  that  the  instruc- 
tions may  be  comprehensive  and  explicit,  so  as  not  to  render  it  neces- 
sary to  make  another  reference. 

Although  the  suggestion  mentioned  in  a  former  despatch,  of  lines 
defining  exclusive  sovereignty,  and  leaving  between  them  debatable 
ground  of  joint  occupancy  and  sovereignty,  was  not  favorably  receiv- 
ed by  the  British  Plenipotentiaries,  I  would  wish  to  have  the  Presi- 
dent's opinion  upon  it.  It  is  possible  that,  as  a  last  alternative,  it  may 
be  recurred  to ;  and,  in  that  case,  I  should  know  not  only  whether  the 
1  rinciple  is  admissible,  but  how  the  lines  should  be  defined. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c. 

ALBERT  GALLATIN. 
Hon.  Hekbt  Cl4T, 

Secretary  of  State,  fVashington,  ^ 


[bxtbact.] 
Mr,  Oallatin  to  Mr.  Clay. 


"t 


LoTunoN,  May  29,  1627. 

<<  Sir  :  Our  eighth  conference  took  place  on  the  24th  instant.    The  ? 
protocol  is  not  yet  agreed  on. 

**  I  made  the  declaration  reserving  to  my  Government  the  right  of 
contending  for  the  full  extent  of  the  claims  of  the  United  States  to  the 
territory  west  of  the  Stony  Mountains;  on  which,  Mr.  Huskisson 
said  that  they  would,  on  their  part,  enter  on  the  record  a  protest 
against  those  claims.  '^,  „' 

'**  I  then  stitted  that  the  President  could  not  agree  to  the  provisions  of 
the  second  article  of  the  projet  of  the  Convention  for  the  joint  occu- 
pancy of  the  territories  in  question ;  andihat,  after  a  deliberate  ex- 
amination of  the  subject,  he  was  still  of  opinion  that  a  simple  renewal 
of  the  former  agreement  for  a  limited  term  of  years  was  sufficient,  and 
the  most  eligible  course  to  be  adopted,  for  the  present ;  it  being  of 
course  understood,  that,  during  that  period,  the  two  Governments 
would,  according  to  the  former  suggestion  of  the  British  Plenipoten** 
tiaries,  unite  their  endeavors  to  adjust  their  differences  by  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  permanent  boundary  in  that  quarter.  This  was  taken 
ad  referendum  ;  Mr.  Huskisson  saying  that  he  must  consult  his  col- 
leagues on  that  subject.''        ..  f  .         V.  ^- 

«  P.  S.     I  did.  not  omit,  in  respect  to  the  western  territory,  to  re- 
mind the  British  Plenipotentiaries  of  the  act  of  Parliament  by  which 


n 


S3 


[Doti.  1^6.  li^!  j 


Great  Britain  had  actually  extended  her  jurisdiction  over  it,  and  to 
say  that  it  was  a  matter  of  surprise,  that  any  objection  conld  hav6  been 
made  to  the  supposed  intention  of  the  United  States  topCirsue  the  sTame 
coarse.  All  that  could  belaid  in  answer  by  Mr.  Huskisson  was,  that 
'it  was  to  the  intention  of  establishing  a  custom-house  and  exacting  du- 
ties,  that  he  had  objected,  as  contrary  to  the  third  article  of  the  Con- 
vention of  1818.     So  far  he  may  be  right.''  ^ 


i^-"'-;. 


11'  ■' 


^.y.^ 


[extract.] 
Jiir,  OaUatin  ioMr.  Clay, 


...i^f  V. 


LoNOoir,  June  20,  1827. 


*<  Sir  :  Cabinet  councils  having  been  held  on  Saturday  and  Monday 
last,  our  conference  did  not  take  place  till  yesterday.  The  British 
Pleni|iotentiaries  expressed  their  assent  to  a  renewal  for  ten  years  of 
the  third  article  of  the  Convention  of  1818,  but  with  a  declaration  on 
the  part  of  Great  Britain,  to  be  entered  in  the  protocol,  that,  according 
to  her  understanding  of  the  article,  neither  party  could  exercise  ex- 
clusive jurisdiction  in  the  jterritory  in  question. 

<<  I  replied,  with  respect  to  the  declaration,  that,  if  entered  on  the 
protocol  without  a  counter  declaration  on  my  part,  it  would  be  tanta- 
mount to  an  express  article  to  the  same  effect,  which  I  had  explicitly 
stated  could  not  be  agi-eed  to  by  the  United  States;  and  that  suppos- 
ing I  could  frame  such  a  counter  declaration,  satisfactory  to  myself, 
it  appeared  to  me  that  an  agreement,  accompanied  by  two  such  con- 
tradictory assertions  of  its  true  meaning  and  intention,  would  be  nu- 
gatory and  useless." 


■H:fl-r::i 


„{i 


'-»;4-»-- 


Mr.  Odlldiin  to  Mr,  clay* 

'\  ■  .■  .o:  iy--':'-  ;jii^i*;'>»?l«  ^'^  .    ■/;:;•:» t/'LoNDOH,  JtineiS,  1827*.  ' 

Sir  :  I  received  from  Mr.  Addthgton,  on  the  2  ist  instant,  the  draft 
of  protocol  of  our  next  preceding  conference,  of  which  a  copy  is  en- 
closed. The  mention  made  in  it  of  the  intended  British  declaration, 
to  be  annexed  to  the  renewal  of:  the  3d  article  of  the  Convention  of 
1818,  would  have  had  the  same  effect  as  the  declaration  itself.  „  I  said 
as  much  at  our  conference  of  yesterday  ;  and  that,  if  the  British  Ple- 
nipotentiaries insisted  on  having  the  protocol  expressed  in  that  man- 
ner. I  would  decline  altogether  agreeing  to  tliG  renewal.  They  agreed 
that  the  drawing  of  the  protocol  should  be  suspended  until  vvc  had  dis- 
posed of  the  subject. 

[  then  stated  tit  large,  my  objections  bot!i  to  the  declaration  and  to 
the  pniposed  additional  article  of  the  Commercial  Convention.  And, 
in  order  tliat  these  might  be  duly  considered  and  cori-ectly  communi- 


[Doc.  No.  199.1 


aa 


cated  by  Mr.  Huskissoii  to  liis  colleagues,  I  put  in  the  hands  of  the 
rieniiratcntiaries  two  papers,  containing  the  substance  of  those  ob-' 
jections ;  of  which  copies  are  also  enclosed.  Tliey  liave  tv'  \  these 
t'ur  consideration,  and  apparently  with  the  intention  of  givin,^  a  defi- 
nitive answer  on  both  subjects,  at  our  next  conference,  which  is  to 
take  place  on  Tuesday  next,  26th  instant. 

Wo  afterwards  took  up  the  subject  of  the  northeast  boundary,  And 
made  some  progress. 

I  have  the  honor,  &c. 

ALBERT  GALLATIN. 
Hon.  HfiNRT  Clat,  ;     - 

Secretary  of  State,  IVashingtoiu       \        ,    , 

I  liave  just  ivceivcd  your  despatches,  of  12th  and  15tli  May,  Nos. 
^8  iind  29.     Tlie  number  24  is  still  missing.    '■' 


sxercise  ex- 


OhneroationH  on  the  project  of  declaration,  to  be  annexed  to  the  renewal  qf 
the  Convention  respecting  the  Territory  xoest  of  the  Stony  Mountains : 

The  American  Pleni|)otentiary  explicitly  stated,  at  the  Sth  confer^ 
ence,  that  his  Government  had  taken  into  serious  consideration  the 
project  of  Convention,  which  had  been  ofTered,  at  the  sixth  confer- 
unce,  by  the  British  Plenipotentiares,  and  that  they  could  not  agree 
to  the  provisions  of  the  second  arti((le  of  that  projet. 

One  of  those  provisions  was.  that  neither  of  the  contracting  parties 
should,  during  the  term  agreed  on  for  tlie  continuance  of  the  former 
agreement,  assume  or  exercise  any  right  of  exclusive  sovereignty  or 
dominion  over  any  part  of  the  country  west  of  the  Stony  Mountains. 

By  the  proposed  declaration,  his  Britannic  Majesty  would  declare 
that  his  Majesty  considers  himself,  and  in  like  manner  holds  that  the 
United  States  are  equally  precluded,  by  the  provisions  of  the  thii'd 
article  of  the  Convention  of  1818,  now  intended  to  be  renewed,  from 
exercising,  or  assuming  to  exercise,  any  exclusive  sovereignty  or  juris- 
diction over  the  territory  in  question. 

To  acquiesce  in  such  declaration,  whether  annexed  in  the  Conven- 
tion or  inserted  in  the  protocol,  would  be  tantamount  to  the  insertion, 
in  the  Convention,  of  the  same  provision,  to  which,  as  part  of  the 
second  article  of  the  projet  offered  at  the  sixth  cqnference,  ^he  United 
States  have  already  declared  their  inability  to  accede. 

The  American  Pleniiiotentiary  is  not  prepared  to  annex  to  the  re- 
newal a  declaration  oil  the  part  of  the  United  States ;  and,  indeed, 
with  two  such  contradictory  instruments,  it  vrauld  seem  preposterous 
to  make  any  agreement  whatever. 

He  must,  therefore,  declare  his  inability  to  agree  to  a  renewal  of 
the  thii*d  article  of  the  Convention  of  1818,  if  accompanied  with  a 
declaration  such  as  has  been  proposed,  or  such  as  is  inserted  in  iftt 
draft  of  protor/il  for  tlie  last  conference. 


31 


m 


1  i!:i 


ll'i  u- 


II  ! 


m 


f\ 


J? 


1  '■ 


.,v 


[Doc.  No.  199.1 


Any  act,  of  cither  party,  that  would  impede  or  impair  the  rights' 
secured,  by  the  said  third  article,  to  the  vessels,  citizens,  and  sub- 
jects,  of  tlietwo  Powers,  would  be  in  contravention  of  the  article;  in 
other  respects  it  is  silent  on  the  subject  of  sovereignty  and  jurisdic- 
tion ;  and  the  inconveniences  against  which  it  may  have  been  the  ob* 
Ject  of  the  proposed  declaration  to  provide,  are  only  apprehended,  but 
have  not  yet  been  experienced. 

By  the  act  of  Parliament  of  tlie  2d  July,  19tiM,  {>  and  2,  Geo.  IV. 
cap.  66,)  entitled  <*An  act  for  regulating  the  fur  trade,  and  estab- 
lishing a  criminal  and  civil  jurisdiction  within  certain  parts  of  North 
America,"  Great  Britain  has  assumed  such  jurisdict'ton  as  suited  'her 
own  purposes,  leaving  to  a  powerfiil  company  the  general  govern- 
ment of  the  country. 

That  act,  taken  literally  and  in  the  abstract,  may  bo  liable  to  ob- 
jections on  the  part  of  the  United  States.  It  has  not  been  critically 
examined  with  that  view,  because  no  practical  inconvenience  has  been 
felt  from  it,  and  in  full  confidence  that  it,  was  not  intended,  and 
would  not  be  executed,  so  as  to  contravene  the  compact  between  the 
two  countries. 

The  United  States,  on  their  part,  have  not  assumed  cr  exercised 
any  sovereignty  or  jurisdiction  over  the  country.  Whenever  this 
may  become  necessary,  tl^ey  have  the  same  right  to  do  it,  in  the  man- 
ner most  suitable  to  their  institutions,  ami  to  the  pursuits  of  their  sub- 
jects. The  same  reliance  may  bo  placed  on  their  violating  no  exist- 
ing agreement.  It  is  also  their  wish  to  avoid,  as  far  as  practicable, 
any  measures  that  might  produce  collisions.. 

That  so  long  as  no  permanent  boundary  sball  have  been  agreed  on^ 
the  subject  will  be  attended  with  difficulties,  cannot  be  concealed. 
The  United  States  have  not  believed  that  these  would  be  removed  by 
provisions  expressed  in  such  general  terms  as  that  proposed  by  Great 
Britain.  Neither  Government  appears,  at  this  moment,  to  be  pre- 
pared for  more  specific  conditions.  It  is  submitted,  whether,  as  pre- 
paratory to  a  more  definitive  arrangement,  and  in  order  to  obviate 
the  objections  to  which  the  renewal  for  as  long  a  term  as  had  been  con- 
templated, may  be  liable,  the  best  course  might  not  be  to  renew  the 
former  agreement  for  only  four  years,  and  thenceforth  until  one  party 
shall  have  given  the  other  one  year's  notice  of  his  desire  to  put  an 
end  to  it. 


'f: 


'  [exteact.]  f 

Jlr,  Oallatin  to  Mr,  Clay* 

London,  27th  JunCf  1827. 

<<  SiK  :  A  new  suggestion  was  also  made  respecting  the  renewal  of 
the  agreement  for  the  joint  occupancy  of  the  territory  west  of  the  Stony 
Mountains.     The  British  Plenipotentiaries  had  it  in  contemplation  to 


[Doc.  No.  i99.]  •• 

insert  in  tlio  protocol  a  declaration  pui^rting,  cither  that,  according 
tu  their  understanding;  of  the  agreement,  neither  party  had  a  right  to 
take  military  possession  of  the  country,  or  that,  if  the  United  States 
did  establish  any  military  posts  in  the  country.  Great  Britain  wonid 
do  the  same.  They  preferred  the  first  mode,  as  the  other  might  be 
construed  by  the  United  States  as  having  the  appearance  of  a  threat. 
Great  Britain,  they  said,  had  no  wish  to  establish  such  posts,  and 
would  do  it  only  in  self-defence.  But  she  could  not  acquiesce  in  acts 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  which  would  give  sanction  to  their 
claim  of  sabsolute  and  exclusive  sovereignty,  and  calculated  also  to 
produce  collisions  having  a  national  character.  Occasional  distur- 
bances between  the  traders  of  the  two  countries  might  be  overlooked  ; 
but  any  question  connected  with  the  flag  of  either  Power  would  be  of 
a  serious  nature,  and  might  commit  them  in  a  most  inconvenient  and 
dangerous  manner. 

<<  I  replied,  that  I  could  not  agree  jjp  the  renewal  of  the  agreement, 
rf  accompanied  with  the  insertion  in  the  protocol  of  any  declaration 
puqiorting  to  attach  any  construction  or  interpretation  whatever  to 
the  agreement  As  to  a  declaration,  not  pretending  to  give  such  con- 
struction, but  stating  what  the  British  Government  intended  to  do  in 
the  event  of  a  certain  contingency,  I  would  take  it  into  consideration 
when  made,  and  see  whetlier  it  should  or  should  not  preclude  me  from 
agreeing  to  the  renewal.  But  I  would  observe,  that  the  proper  place 
ot  a  declaration  of  this  nature,  was  not  in  the  protocol.  If  it  was  the 
intention  of  tlie  British  Government  to  signify  their  determination  of 
cstabliflhing  military  posts  in  that  country,  in  case  it  was  done  by 
the  United  States,  such  communication  was  equally  necessary  whe- 
ther there  was  or  was  not  a  renewal  of  the  agreement.  And  the  most 
proper  mode  of  making  it,  was  through  the  ordinary  channels  of  diplo- 
matic communications,  through  the  British  Minister  at  Washington  ; 
or,  if  done  here,  by  a  note  from  the  British  Secretary  State  to  the 
American  Minister.  It  did  not  appear  to  me  to  have  any  thing  to  do 
with  our  negotiations  for  a  renewal  of  tlie  agreement. 

*<  The  contemplated  renewal  itself  would  be  attended  with  no  pecu- 
liar advantages  to  the  United  States.  It  was  altogether  a  matter  of 
mutual  concern.  There  was  no  other  object  for  it  than  that  of  pre- 
serving peace,  until  a  permanent  boundary  could  be  agreed  on.  As  it 
now  stood,  it  provided  only  for  one  thing — that  the  traders  of  cither 
party  should  not  impede  those  of  the  other  party.  There  was  but 
one  condition  in  the  agreement,  and  that  related  cxclusivelv  to  a  free 
trade.  Other  conditions  might  be  found  necessary  fur  the  preserva- 
tion of  harmony.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  was  not  at 
this  time  prepared  to  make  a  new  agreement,  embracing  such  addi- 
tional stipulations.  The  same  observation  seemed  to  apply  to  the 
British  Government,  since  they  had  not  been  able  to  propose  any 
thing  more  than  a  clause  expressed  in  such  general  terms  as  not  at 
all  to  prevent  collisions  on  the  subject.  From  the  exposition  which 
Gi-eat  Britain  had  now  made  of  her  claim,  I  was  jicrsonally  inclined 
to  think  that  a  more  specific  agreement,  calculated  to  preserve  peace 


86 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


■i;lli 


ill 

I' 

!15 


nil    '|M 

iv! 


|:| 


't  ii 


in  every  i'o.«^ect,  ^vltfl  not  impracticable,  and  would  b«  rather  advaiP* 
tageouH  to  the  United  Stated. 

It  appeared  from  that  exiiosition,  that  Great  Britain  denied,  indeed, 
their  exclusive  right  to  any  part  of  the  territory  in  question,  but  made 
no  exclusive  claim  herself,  and  considered  it  as  open  to  the  firstoccu* 
pant.  Although  the  United  States  asnerted,  and  would  not  abandon 
their  exclusive  right,  in  fact,  (he  country  must  necessarily  become 
ultimately  theirs,  even  according  to  the  British  doctrine,  in  that 
view  of  the  subject,  all  that  the  United  States  might  want,  was  the 
very  object  which  Great  Britain  declared  to  bo  hers,  viz.  the  pre- 
servation of  peace,  until  (if  no  arrangement  for  a  permanent  bounda- 
ry should*  take  place)  the  whole  country  was  occupied  :  and  I  hud  my- 
self no  doubt  that  it  would  be  entirely  occupied  and  settled  by  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States. 

*'  Diflfuulties  would  certainly  occur  in  adjusting  the  stipulations  ne- 
cessary to  preserve  peace.  1  hail  already,  in  a  former  discussion* 
mentioned  one  relating  to  military  occupancy.  This  was  not  wanted 
by  Great  Britain.  The  servants  of  her  great  fur  company  wore  nu- 
merous enougli,  and  so  organized  as  to  afford  sufficient  protection  to 
persons  and  property  against  Indian  aggressions,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  under  such  restraints  as  prevented  them  from  provoking  such 
aggressions.  It  was  otherwise  with  the  United  States,  and  exjie- 
rience  had  shown  that  a  qiilitary  force  was  necessary  and  sufficient  to 
preserve  ])eace  with  the  Indians. 

«  But,  however  difficult  in  its  details,  and  though  not  prepared  at 
this  moment  to  discuss  them,  the  object  in  view  was  certainly  of  great 
importance  to  both  parties.  I  was  inclined  to  think  that  a  simple  re- 
newal of  the  agreement,  and  nothing  more  was  practicable  at  pre- 
sent, was  best  calculated  to  keep  the  two  Powers  in  a  situation  favor- 
able to  the  success  of  a  negotiation  for  that  purpose.  M^ith  the  same 
object  in  view,  if  Great  Britain  thought  it  more  eligible  to  have  in  the 
meanwhile  no  agreement  whatever  on  that  subject,  it  was  left  entirely 
at  her  option  so  to  decide. 

<*The  British  Plenipotentiaries  said,  that  there  was  such  an  avowed 
intention,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  to  establish  a  military 
post,  that  they  thought  that  they  could  not  agree  to  a  renewal  of  the 
former  agreement,  without  making,  at  the  same  time,  some  declara- 
tion on  that  point ;  but  that  they  would  again  consider  the  subject,  be- 
fore they  came  to  a  definitive  determination.'*  . 


I'M 


1 1} 


■*  Mr.  Gallatin  to  Mr.  Clay. 

London,  7th  Jiugustf  IB27. 
The  Hon.  Hekry  Ciat,  .. 

Secretary  of  State. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  a  Convention,  concluded  yesterday 
with  the  British  Plenipotentiaries,  renewing  indefinitely,  but  liable  to 
be  annulled  at  the  will  of  either  pai'ty,  the  third  article  of  the  Conven- 
«onofl818. 


^ii  f 


[l)oc.  No.  199.3 


87 


The  negotiation  fur  ofitabliahing  a  permanent  boundary  between  tho 
United  StatcH  and  Great  Bntain  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  failed 
altogether.  The  protocols  of  the  three  first  conferences  exhiuit  the 
proposals  made  on  both  sides ;  and  the  arguments  urged  by  each 
party,  are  embodied  in  the  exposition  of  their  claims,  as  annexed  by 
each,  respectively,  to  the  sixtli  and  seventh  protocols. 

I'he  renewal  of  tho  temporary  agreement  contained  in  the  3d  arti- 
cle  of  the  Convention  of  1818,  was  then  discussed;  and  the  British 
Plenipotentiaries  offered,  at  the  sixth  conference  (of  1 6th  Dec.  1 8S6,) 
a  projet  of  Convention,  proposing  a  renewal  of  the  said  article  for  fifteen 
years,  but  with  the  condition,  amongst  others,  that  neither  party 
should,  during  that  term,  exercise  iftiy  right  of  exclusive  sovereignty 
or  dominion  over  any  part  of  the  country  in  question.  . 

This  project  having  been  referred  to  my  Government,  your  answer, 
declining  tlie  proposed  condition,  was  rercivcd  before  the  month  of 
April.  But  the  negotiations,  which  it  had  been  intended  to  resume 
in  February,  had  been  suspended,  on  account  of  Mr.  Huskisson's  state 
of  health  ;  and  tho  unsettled  situation  of  the  British  cabinet  prevented 
a  renewal  of  the  conferences  till  the  24th  of  May. 

After  it  had  been  declared,  on  my  part,  that  the  United  States 
could  not  acceile  to  the  restrictive  condition  proposed  by  the  British 
Plenipotentiaries,  they  intimated  an  intention  of  agreeing  to  the  re- 
newal of  tho  former  agreement  without  condition,  but  of  inserting  in 
the  protocol  a  declaration  that  they  considered  Uoth  parties,  according 
to  the  true  intent  of  that  agreement,  to  be  restricted,  during  its  contin- 
uance,  from  exercising  any  exclusive  sovereignty  or  jurisdiction  over 
the  territory  in  question. 

I  stated  that,  considering  an  acquiescence  to  such  declaration  as 
tantamount  to  an  acceptance  of  the  same  article  whicli  the  United 
States  had  thought  inadmissible,  I  could  not  agree  to  the  renewal  of 
the  agreement,  if  accompanied  by  the  insertion  in  the  protocol  of  tho 
suggested  declaration,  or  of  any  purporting  to  explain  the  intent  or 
meaning  of  tho  article  intended  to  be  continued  in  force. 

Various  other  proposals  were  suggested,  though  not  presented  in  an 
official  shape,  having  the  same  object  in  view:  such  as  that  neither  1 
Power  should  establish  any  military  post  in  the  territory  in  question,  , 
and  that  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  either  coiuitry'should,  for  any  of* 
fences  or  acts  done  in  that  territory,  be  amenable  only  to  the  tribu-. 
nals  of  their  own  country.  To  all  these,  I  gave,  as  a  general  answer," 
that  I  could  not  entertain  any  such  proposals ;  their  object  being,  in 
my  opinion,  to  preclude,  in  another  form,  the  exe^'cise  of  exclusive  so- 
vereignty, a  provision  which  I  wa'i  not  authorised  to  admit,  and  to 
which  the  United  States  were  not  pi'epared  to  accjede. 

The  reasons  assigned  by  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  for  this  pro- 
vision were,  that,  according  to  their  view  of  tiie  subject,  it  was  the 
true  intent  or  object  of  the  former  agreement,  to  keep  in  abeyance, 
during  its  continuance,  all  conflicting  rights  to  the  territory  to  which, 
it  related  ;  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  had  manifested 
an  intention  to  enforce  the  rights  they  claimed,  by  assuming  exclu- 
sive sovereignty,  as  appeared  by  a  bill  wliirh  had  passed  one  of  the 


Il!l 


ill 


.  „J  -i 


;!il 


III    ■'' 


,1'', 


''MB    ! 


il    ^'' 


[Doc.  No.  1W9.] 


branches  of  the  Legislature,  for  extending  to  that  territory  iegtshi* 
'.'^  tive,  executive,  and  judicial  jurisdiction,  and,  by  tlie  recommendation 
of  the  President,  to  establish  there  a  military  post ;  and  that  it  would 
be  utterly  impossible  to  prevent  collisions  of  a  national  character,  if 
the  two  parties  should  pr(  jeed  to  sucli  acts  of  absolute  sovereignty. 

It  was  deuied,  on  my  part,  that  any  thing  more  was  meant  or  in- 
tended by  the  former  agreement  than  what  appeared  on  the  face  of  it ; 
and  that  all  that  was  provided  for  by  that  compact,  was  to  leave  the 
country  open  to  the  commerce  of  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  both  par- 
ties, without  liindcraNce  either  from  the  Government  or  from  the  sub- 
jects or  citizens  of  cither  party. 

I  observed,  that,  whatever  miglft  be  the  presumed  intentions  of  the 
American  Government,  they  had  not,  as  yet,  do!ie  a  single  act  assum- 
ing jurisdiction  of  any  kind  over  the  territory  west  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains  ;  and  that  it  was  rather  singular  that  the  mere  apprehen< 
sion  of  sych  acts  should  hav*  brought  forth  the  proposal  which  had 
been  made  by  the  British  Plenipotentiaries,  at  (he  very  time  when 
Great  Britain  had  herself  assumed  that  jurisdiction  which  she  con- 
sidered dangerous  to  the  peace  of  the  two  countries. 

The  act  of  Parliament  (1  and  S  George  iv.  ch.  66)  of  2d  July,  1821, 
entitled  «  An  act  for  regulating  the  fur  trade,  and  establishing  a' 
criminal  and  civil  jurisdiction  within  certain  parts  of  North  America," 
authorized  the  King  to  grant  to  any  company,  or  persons,  the  exclu- 
sive privilege  of  trading  with  the  Indians,  in  all  parts  of  North  Amer- 
ica, not  being  part  of  the  territories  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
of  His  Majesty's  Provinces  in  North  America,  or  of  any  lands  or  ter- 
ritories belonging  to  the  United  States  of  America.  But  a  special  ex- 
ception was  made  by  the  fourth  section  of  the  act,  expressly  founded 
OH  the  Convention  betvveen  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  and 
declaring,  that  nothing  in  the  act  contained  should  be  construed  to  au- 
thorize any  such  persons  or  company  to  exercise  such  exclusive  trade 
to  the  prejudice  or  exclusion  of  any  citizens  of  the  United  States,  who 
might  be  engaged  in  the  said  trade. 

No  such  exception  was  made  in  relation  to  the  provisions  of  the  act 
establishing  jurisdiction.  The  courts  of  Upper  Canada  were,  by 
those  provisions,  declared  to  have  the  same  civil  jurisdiction,  in  all 
i-espects,  within  the  parts  of  America  not  within  the  limits  of  Lower 
or  Upper  Canada,  or  of  any  civil  government  of  the  United  States, 
as  they  had  within  the  limits  of  Upper  Canada.  The  King  was  au- 
thorized to  appoint  persons  to  act  as  justices  of  the  peace  within  the 
aforesaid  parts  of  America,  and  to  cojistitute  courts,  composed  of  such 
justices,  and  having  an  inferior  civil  and  ci'iminal  jurisdiction.  All 
capital  and  other  liigh  offences,  and  all  civil  suits  above  a  certain 
amount,  were  to  be  tried  in  the  courts  of  Upper  Canada.  No  pro- 
vision was  insertcl,  excepting  citizens  of  the  United  States  from  that 
jurisdiction.  And  this  extended  precisely  to  the  country  in  question, 
to  the  whole  territory  west  of  the  Stony  Mountains,  since  the  territo- 
ries  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  did  not  reach  beyond  those  moun- 
tains, and  the  British  Government  denied  that  any  part  of  the  said 
territory  was  within  tlic  limits  of  t!ie  United  States. 


"W; 


Il  ull 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


ry  legishi- 
mcridation 
it  it  would 
aracter,  if 
i-ei^nty. 
eaiit  or  in- 
face  of  it ; 
1)  leave  the 
'  both  par- 
im  the  sub- 


July,  1821. 
ablishing  a 
1  America," 
,  the  exclu- 
iorth  Amer- 
^  Company, 
anda  or  ter- 
1  special  ex- 
isly  founded 
States,  and 
trued  to  au- 
iusive  trade 
States,  who 

IS  of  the  act 
|a  were,  by 
;tion,  in  all 
Its  of  Lower 
lited  States, 
|ing  was  a»- 
within  the 
•scd  of  such 
iction.     All 
c  a  certain 
No  i» ro- 
ts from  that 
|in  question, 
tlic  territo- 
:hosc  moun- 
of the  said 


It  was  therefore  evident  that  Great  Britain  had  given  to  the  teropO" 
rary  agreement  of  1818,  the  same  construction  for  which  I  contend- 
cd ;  that  she  considered  it  as  securing  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  th^  * 
two  countries  in  the  enjoyment  of  a  free  trade  within  the  limits  of  the 
territory  in  question,  but  not  as  imposing  any  other  restrictions  on 
cither  Government. 

The  United  States  might  indeed  have  a  right  to  complain  of  some 
of  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  Parliament,  not  as  being  a  breach  of  the 
compact,  but  generally  as  an  infraction  of  the  right  of  sovereignty 
claimed  ly  them  over  a  considerable  part  of  the  territory.  If  no 
sucli  complaint  had  been  made,  it  was  probably  because  the  act  had 
nut  been  literally  executed.  But  Great  Britatn  having  assumed  in 
fact  as  much  jurisdiction  as  was  necessary  for  the  protection  of  her 
subjects,  and  for  the  maintenance  of  order  in  the  country,  so  far  as 
she  was  concerned,  could  not,  at  all  events,  complain,  if  the  United 
States  should,  on  their  pari,  adopt  such  measures  as  were  necessary 
for  the  same  object ;  even  if  these  were  not  precisely  the  same  which 
had  been  deemed  sufficient  by  Great  Britain. 

A  powerful  incorporated  company,  to  the  exclusion  of  prfvatc 
Dritish  traders,  was,  in  itself,  a  territorial  Government.  Even  the 
extensive  and  {xipulous  regions  of  the  East,  had,  for  a  long  period, 
been  governed  through  the  same  means.  In  the  American  territo- 
ries, inhabited  by  the  native  tribes,  experience  had  shown  that,  when- 
ever private  British  traders  had  been  admitted,  or  even  when  the 
competition  was  only  between  two  compames,  intestine  contentious 
and  bloodshed  could  not  be  prevented.  But  when  there  was  but  one 
exclusive  company,  its  agents  were  the  governors,  all  tlie  other 
British  subjects  in  the  territory  were  the  servants  of  that  company  ; 
they  miglit  be,  and  were  kept  under  perfect  subordination,  restrained 
from  committing  any  outrages  on  the  Indians,  and  foi*ming  a  force 
sufficient  for  protection  against  them.  Peace  and  order  had,  through 
tliose  means,  been  effectually  preserved.  Nothing  was  wanting  to 
complete  the  system,  but  the  establishment  of  proper  tribunals  for 
deciding  civil  suits  and  trying  offences.  This  was  precisely  what 
had  been  done  by  the  act  of  Parliament,  of  1821.  Taking  all  its 
provisions  together,  it  answered  every  purpose  which  Great  Britain 
had  in  view.  But,  in  order  to  attain  the  same  object,  the  United 
States  would  be  obliged  to  resort  to  different  means. 

The  establishment  of  an  exclusive  comjiany  appeared  incompatible 
with  their  habits  and  institutions.  They  could  not  govern  the  coun- 
try and  preserve  peace  through  that  medium.  So  far  as  related  to  the 
administration  of  justice,  Great  Britain  could  not  deny  their  right  of 
doing  what  she  had  done  herself,  of  establishing  i)roper  tribunals  ;  and 
it  was  immaterial  whether  the  Superior  Courts  sat  within  or  without 
the  limits  of  the  territory.  But  the  executive  authority,  as  it  could 
not  be  vested  in  the  agents  of  a  company,  must  be  exercised  by  offi- 
cers of  the  United  States.  And  again,  not  having  the  numerous  ser- 
vants of  a  company  under  their  control,  they  had  no  other  means  to 
preserve  peace  but  a  mili^  ry  force.     This  was  imleed  altogether  ur- 


4b 


INI 


! 


ill 


■!    .1     ' 


I: ; 


i*8      I 


111 


' '  I 


MM-<' 


'■ill 


:'!!  i. 


'!)' 


'.I 


i  '!'- 


•I  Mill  ' 

!    iHHl     .!i 


LDoc.  No.  t99.] 


necessary,  and  never  resorted  to  for  that  purpose  in  tlio  interior  part* 
of  the  United  States.  But  experience  had  also  proved,  that,  in  what 
was  called  Indian  territories,  and  along  their  borders,  such  a  force 
was  necessary,  and  a  small  one  was  sufficient  to  protect  the  white  in> 
habitants  against  Indian  depredations,  and  the  Indians  themselves 
against  the  aggressions  of  lawless  indivi<luals.  I'eace  had  thus  fur 
a  number  of  years  been  preserved  with  the  Indians  and  amongst  the 
Indians.  It  had  been  found  impracticable  to  do  it  without  such  means. 

I  admitted,  at  the  same  time,  that  there  was,  if  not  imminent,  at  least 
ultimate  danger  of  collisions,  as  long  as  no  permanent  boundary  was 
agreed  on  in  that  quarter  ;  and  that  it  was  extremely  desirable  that 
some  arrangement  might  be  made,  which  should  in  the  meanwhile 
prevent  any  serious  differences  arising  from  that  cause  between  the 
two  countries.  i 

This  object  would  not  be  attained  by  simply  agreeing  to  a  condi- 
tion expressed  in  terms  so  general  and  vague,  as  that  which  had  been 
proposed  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  and  which,  if  acceded  to,  would, 
without  providing  for  what  she  had  in  view,  give  occasion  to  new  dis- 
cussions respecting  its  true  meaning.  Thus,  for  instance,  she  was  de- 
sirous that  neither  party  should  establish  any  military  post  in  the 
country  ;  and,  if  both  should  happen  to  do  it,  the  act  could  not,  on 
either  side,  be  considered  as  one  of  exclusive  sovereignty.  The  only 
agreement  that  could  answer  the  end  proposed,  must  be  one  containing 
specific  provisions,  enumerating  the  acts  which  each  party  might  do^ 
and  those  from  which  each  must  abstain,  during  its  continuance.  But 
this  subject  had  not  yet  been  taken  into  consideration  by  my  Govern- 
ment. Both  the  utility  and  the  difficulty  of  such  an  arrangement  had, 
for  the  first  time,  been  brought  distinctly  into  view  in  the  course  of 
this  negotiation.  The  various  proposals  or  suggestions  of  the  British 
Plenipotentiaries,  not  always  according  with  each  other  in  principle, 
showed  that  the  views  of  neither  party  were  yet  matured.  I  had  no 
doubt  that  my  Government  would  be  disposed  to  enter  into  an  agree-' 
ment  calculated  to  prevent  disputes,  provided  this  was  found  practi- 
cable ;  that  they  would  entertain  any  proposals  having  that  object  in 
view,  and  which  should  neither  affect  the  rights  claimed  by  the  United 
States,  nor  impede  the  pursuits  of  tlieir  citizens  artd  the  progress  of 
their  settlements  in  the  territory  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains.  But 
this  must  be  the  subject  of  a  subsequent  negotiation .  There  was  no 
pressing  immediate  necessity  for  such  an  agreement.  At  all  events, 
I  was  not  authorized  to  conclude,  or,  indeed,  the  subject  being  quite 
new,  to  discuss  its  details.  I  covhl  only  agree  to  a  simple  renewal 
of  the  third  article.  The  United  States  had  no  particular  interest  in 
its  continuance.  It  was  a  matter  of  mutual  concern.  If  there  was 
any  advantage  in  not  suffering  that  agreement  to  expire,  it  was  com> 
mon  to  both  parties.  Without  attaching  a  very  great  importance  to 
it,  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  seeing  no  inconvenience  in 
its  renewal  for  a  term  not  exceeding  ten  years,  had  instructed  me  to 
that  effect,  because  the  country  being  as  yet  used  only  for  the  pur- 
pose of  trading  with  the  natives,  there  appeared  a  mutual  advantage 


[Doc  No.  199.1 


41 


ciior  part* 
it,  in  what 
icli  a  force 
Q  white  iii« 
tliemselves 
id  thus  fur 
nongst  the 
ich  means, 
nt,  at  least 
indary  was 
irable  that 
meanwhile 
etwcen  the 

)  a  condi- 
li  had  been 
I  to,  would, 
o  new  dis- 
;he  was  de- 
post  in  the 
uld  not,  on 
The  only 
containing 
f  might  doy 
ance.   But 
ly  Govern- 
ement  had; 
course  of 
the  British 
principle, 
I  had  no 
an  agree- 
jnd  practi- 
tt  object  in 
the  United 
)rogress  of 
ins.     But 
ere  was  no 
all  events, 
Mting  quite 
le  renewal 
interest  in 
there  was 
,  was  com- 
lortance  to 
v'enience  in 
3ted  me  to 
[)r  the  pur- 
advantage 


that  the  subjects  and  citizens  of  neither  party  should  be  disturbed  in 
that  pursuit  by  those  of  the  other  party.  The  course  which  the  dis- 
cussion had  taken,  suggested;  another  reason  in  favor  of  the  renewal. 
The  dissolution  of  the  existing  agreement,  wliilst  tlie  boundary  re- 
mained unsettled,  would  have  an  unfavorable  moral  effect  on  the  re- 
lations between  the  two  countries.  They  would  be  left  in  almost  an 
hostile  attitude  in  that  quarter.  A  temporary  renewal  would  give 
time  to  mature  measures  of  a  more  permanent  nature,  and  leave  both 
parties  in  a  better  temper  to  enter  into  the  discussion  of  those  mea- 
sures. All  these  were  general  considerations,  not  more  applicable  to 
the  United  States  than  to  Great  Britain,  ?^iid  it  was  now  lor  her  to  de- 
cide ;  but  it  was  the  only  option  left,  whether  she  would  agree  to  a 
temporary  renewal,  without  any  additional  condition  or  explanatory 
declaration. 

Tiie  British  Plenipotentiaries  did  not  admit  that  the  act  of  Parlia- 
ment of  July,  1821,  was  susceptible  of  the  strict  literal  construction  I 
had  put  upon  it.  They  declared,  explicitly,  that  it  had  no  other  object 
but  the  maintenance  of  order  amongst  British  subjects,  and  had  never 
been  intended  to  apply  to  citizens  of  the  United  States.  That  such 
was  not  the  intentbn  of  Great  Britain,  was  evident  from  the  various 
proposals  now  made  on  her  part,  having  all  for  their  object  to  prevent 
both  parties  from  assuming  an  exclusive  jurisdiction. 

They  expressed  their  regret  that  I  was  not  authorized  or  even  pre- 
pared to  enter  into  a  discussion  of  the  measures  necessary  to  prevent 
most  serious  differences  taking  place.  An  arrangement  to  that  effect, 
though  attended  with  tlifficulties,  did  not  appear  to  them  impractica- 
ble. There  was  no  intention  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  to  colonize 
the  country,  or  to  impede  the  progress  of  our  settlements.  They 
would  be  disposed,  if  such  an  arrangement  as  they  contemplated  could 
be  effected,  to  assign  to  it  a  longer  duration  than  had  been  at  first 
mentioned,  (perhaps  25  years,)  and  to  leave  the  further  occupation  and 
settlement  of  a  country,  which  they  considered  as  equally  open  to  all, 
to  take  its  own  course.  But  Great  Britain  owed  protection  to  her 
subjects  in  that  quaHer,  and  could  not  admit  that  they  should,  so  long 
as  the  permanent  boundary  was  not  settled,  be  liable  to  a  foreign  ju- 
risdiction. Nor  would  her  interest,  or  a  due  regard  to- national  cha- 
racter, permit  her  to  acquiesce  in  an  exclusive  military  occupation  of 
the  country,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States.  The  necessary  conse,- 
quence  of  such  an  occupation  on  their  part,  would  be  the  establish- 
ment, also,  of  military  posts  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain.  There 
was  a  great  difference  between  the  national  flag  and  that  of  a  private 
company  :  and  they  apprehend  that  the  erection  of  the  first,  by  either 
party,  would  render  the  final  adjustment  of  the  boundary  line  more 
difficult,  and  the  preservation  of  peace  more  precarious. 

The  British  Plenipotentiaries  added,  that,  considering  the  nature 
of  the  claim  to  the  country,  as  set  up  by  each  party.  Great  Britain 
would  hardly  be  placed  on  equal  terms,  if  the  agreement  was  renewed, 
without  inserting  in  it,  insorie  shape,  the  condition  they  had  suggest- 
ed— the  United  States  asserting  a  claim  of  absolute  aovereignty,  and 
6 


i  !l   iTMl 


ii 


■1,1 


1  m 


m 

'■'if 

ill 


i 

:1     1 

\i 

Ill 


■1'^ 

.(|! 


I    i 


■ 


:  m\ 


M 


?^ 


•It'll 

ill  It;  i 


42 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


a  latitude  for  the  construction  of  that  compact,  which  Great  Britain 
denied  to  herself.  They  could  not,  therefore,  agree  to  a  simple  re- 
newal for  a  fixed  term  of  years ;  but  they  would  not  object  to  a  tem- 
porary continuance,  with  the  intention  of  preventing  C(^Ii»ions,  while 
measures  were  maturing  for  a  more  permanent  arrangement. 

To  this  overture  I  acceded  without  licsitation,  ^nd  proposed,  as  had 
been  done  by  the  British  Plenipotentiaries,  in  relation  to  the  commer- 
cial Convention,  that  each  party  should  be  at  liberty  to  rescind  the 
agreement,  on  giving  twelve  months'  notice  to  the  otiier  party.  Thi^ 
indeed,  appeared  to  me,  upon  the  whole,  a  more  eligible  mode  than 
that  of  a  renewal  for  ten  years  ;  it  being  quite  as  probable  that  the 
United  States  may  find  it  expedient  to  annul  the  compact  before  the 
expiration  of  that  term,  as  that  it  will  suit  the  convenience  of  Great 
Britain  to  do  it. 

I  beg  leave  here  to  observe,  that  some  of  the  most  cogent  motives 
for  having  made  the  agreement  in  1818,  have  now  ceased  to  operate. 
The  country  is  still  now,  as  it  was  then,  almost  exclusively  occupied 
by  the  British  tradei*s.  But  the  claim  of  the  United  States  had  not, 
at  that  time,  been  strengthened  by  the  acquisition  of  that  of  Spain. 
The  Brf*'sh  Plenipotentiaries,  nnable,  for  that  very  reason,  to  sus- 
tain the  British  claim  against  the  United  States,  by  the  Nootka  Con- 
vention, did  titen  assert  a  right  of  absolute  sovereignty,  founded,  as 
they  said,  on  p'ior  drscovi:ries  and  Indian  purchases,  but  which  is  no 
longer  aifirmetl.  They  had  also  declared,  that  the  order  given  by  the 
British  Government,  but  not  yet  carried  into  effect,  for  the  restitu- 
tion of  Astoria,  had  issued  under  an  erroneous  impression  that  that 
establishment  had  been  captured,  instead  of  having  been,  as  they  as- 
serted, voluntarily  transferred.  For  all  those  reasons,  it  appeared 
necessary,  that,  in  a  Convention  which  established  the  49th  parallel 
of  latitude  as  the  boundary  between  the  two  countries  as  far  as  the 
Stony  Mountains,  some  provision  should  be  inserted,  recognizing  the 
existence  of  the  claims  of  the  United  States  to  the  territory  west  of 
those  mountains.  As  there  was  no  apparent  reason  why  that  boundary 
should  not,  as  the  northern  limit  of  Louisiana,  have  been  extended 
to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  absolute  silence  with  respect  to  that  territory, 
might,  under  all  tl>e  circumstances  of  the  case,  hare  bad  a  tendency 
to  weaken  the  claim  of  the  United  States. 

A  renewal  of  the  agreement  is  no  longer  necessary  for  that  object. 
But,  in  addition  to  the  reasons  that  were  assigned  in  the  course  of  the 
negotiation,  in  favor  of  continuing  it  in  force,  there  is  still  one  pecu- 
liar to  the  United  States.  They  claim  exclusive  sovereignty  over  a 
Territory,  a  considerable  portion  of  which  is  occupied  by  British 
traders,  whom  they  could  not  dispossess  without  engaging  in  a  war ; 
whom,  from  their  distance  and  other  causes,  they  are  not  at  this  time 
prepared  to  remove.  It  is  certainly  more  eligible  that  those  persons 
should  remain  on  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  by  virtue  of  a 
compact,  and  with  their  consent,  than  in  defiance  of  their  authority. 
Although  the  prospect  of  paving  the  way  for  a  more  complete  and  sa- 
tisfactory agreement,  has  been  one  of  the  motives  for  concluding  tbis^ 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


« 


Convention,  no  commitment  has  taken  place  in  that  respect.    And  the 
further  observations  which  I  have  to  submit  on  that  topic^  having  no 
immediate  connexion  with  the  temporary  continuance  of  the  existing 
agreement,  will  be  the  subject  of  a  separate  despatch. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be, 
Respectfully,  sir, 

Your  moMt  obedient  servant, 

ALBERT  GALLATIN. 


PROTOCOL  of  the  Jirst  Conference  of  the  »9merican  and  British  PU' 
nipotentiarieSf  lield  at  the  Foreign  Offi-cCf  on  the  \5th  oj  Jf&oemhery 
1826.  , 

Present: — Mr.  Gallatin, 
Mr.  HusKissoN, 
Mr.  Addington. 

After  the  communication  of  the  respective  full  powers,  it  was  agreed 
that  the  negotiations  should  be  conducted,  as  in  1824,  by  conference 
and  protocol,  each  party  being  at  liberty  to  annex  to  the  protocol  any 
written  statement  which  he  might  think  e^^pedient.  The  Pleni|ioten< 
tiaries  then  agreed  to  take  up,  in  the  first  place,  the  subject  of  terri- 
torial claims  west  of  the  Rooky  Mountains. 

After  some  general  discussion,  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  observ- 
ed, that  a  proposal  of  settlement,  on  that  subject,  having  been  offered 
on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  during  the  course  of  the  negotiations  of 
1824,  which  proposal  had  been  taken  by  the  American  Plenipotentiary 
for  reference  to  his  Government,  they  presumed  that  Mr.  Gallatin  was 
I  prepared  to  give  an  answer  to  that,  or  to  offer  some  tiew  proposal. 

The  American  Plepiijiotentiary  stated  that  the  Government  of  the 
[United  States  could  not  accede  to  the  boundary  line  whicii  had  been 
offered  by  Great  Britain,  but  that,  whilst  insisting  on  the  forty-ninth 
parallel  of  latitude,  he  was  authorized  to  substitute  for  the  proposal - 
made  by  Mr.  Rush,  in  1824,  which  must  be  considered  withdrawn, 
another,  with  a  new  condition,  which  would  evince  the  earnest  desire 
I  of  the  United  States  to  arrange  the  subject  of  difference ;  and  he  ac- 
cordingly offered  the  annexed  article  A. 

This  article  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  took,  without  further  ob- 
servation, for  reference  to  their  Government. 

Adjourned  to  Wednesday,  the  22d  instant,  at  two  o'clock.  ^  •♦ 

A  true  copy. 

W.  B.  Lawrence,  8ec''y  of  Legation,    ^        • 


m 


.  >•■ 


Article  A. — Offered  by  the  ^American  Plmipotentiary. 

It  is  agreed  that  the  boundary  line,  between  the  territories  claimed 
by  the  United  States,  and  those  claimed  by  his  Britannic  Majesty, 
west  of  the  Stony  Mountains,  shall  be  drawn  due  west  from  the  said 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


m' 


^4 


"i  .ii.i. 


mountains,  where  the  boundary  lino  agreed  on  by  the  second  articfe 
of  the  Convention  of  London,  of  20th  of  Octobor,  1818,  terminates, 
along  the  forty-ninth  parallel  of  north  latitude,  to  the  Pacific  ocean. 
If  the  said  lino  shall  cross  the  great  northwesterninost  branch  of  the 
Columbia  river,  marked  in  the  maps  as  McGillivray's  river,  or  any 
of  tlie  other  branches  of  the  Columbia  river,  at  a  place  or  places  from 
which  the  said  McGillivray*s  river,  or  any  such  other  branch  of  the 
Columbia  river,  is  navigable  to  the  main  last  mentioned  river,  the  na- 
vigation  of  the  said  McGilIivray*s  riv<?r,  and  of  any  such  other  brandi 
or  branches,  to  the  Columbia  river,  and  of  the  Columbia  river  itself, 
to  the  ocean,  shall  be  prpctually  free  to  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain, 
in  common  with  the  citizens  of  the  United  States.  The  high  contract- 
ing parties  shall  adopt  measures  in  concert  to  have  the  said  boundary 
line  ascertained,  within  fifteen  years  from  the  dale  of  the  signature  of 
this  Convention,  and  the  right  of  navigation  shall,  in  the  mean  time, 
be  enjoyed  ;  but,  if  it  shall  be  found  that  neither  the  said  McGilli- 
vray's  river,  nor  any  of  the  other  branches  of  the  Columbia  river,  is 
navigable  by  boats,  from  where  the  boundary  line  crosses  them  to  the 
main  Columbia  river,  the  navigation  of  the  said  main  river,  and  of  its 
branches,  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  shall  cease  to  be  free 
to^the  subjects  of  Great  Britain.  It  is  further  specially  agreed,  that 
neither  of  the  high  contracting  Powers,  their  respective  citizens  or 
subjects,  shall,  henceforward,  form  any  settlements  within  the  limits 
assigned  by  the  boundary  line  aforesaid  to  the  other ;  it  being,  at  the 
same  time,  understood,  that  any  such  settlement,  already  formed  by 
the  citizens  or  subjects  of  either  party,  within  the  limits  of  the  other, 
shall  continue  to  be  occupied  and  enjoyed,  at  the  pleasui'e  of  the  pre- 
sent occupants,  without  let  or  hindrance  of  any  kind,  until  the  expira- 
tion of  the  term  of  ten  years  from  the  date  hereof,  and  no  longer. 
The  provisions  of  the  third  article  of  the  Convention  of  London,  of 
the  20th  of  October,  1818,  shall,  in  every  other  respect,  continue  in 
force  for  the  said  term  of  ten  years :  at  the  end  of  which  term,  the 
citizens  and  subjects  of  the  two  parties  shall,  in  trading  with  the  na- 
tives, and  in  the  pursuit  of  game  and  fur,  be  restricted  to  the  side  of 
the  boundary  line  of  their  respective  countries. 

A  true  copy.  /r»! 

„^  W.  B.  Lawrence,  Sec^y  of  Legation:  - 


:■  0 : 


■^c 


V-V 


PROTOCOL  of  the  second  Conference  of  the  Jinierican  and  British  I 
Plenipotentiaries,  held  at  the  Board  of  Trade,  on  the  HZd  of  JVovem- 
6er,  1826.  .«•  '  \-<.i^^-^->    %.,:-v   -,  '. 

Present: — Mr.  Galiatikt,  -^^  « 

Mr.  AoDiNGToy,  * 

Mr.  HusKissoN.  -'  -^^ 

The  protocol  of  the  preceding  conference  was  read  over  and  signed. 

The  subject  of  the  territorial  claims  on  tlie  coast  of  America  west 

of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  was  resumed ;  and,  after  some  general  dis- 


[Doc.  No.  i99.] 


45 


eussioii,  in  which  the  arguments  rcsiiectivcly  employed  at  the  preced- 
ing ronfi^i'ence  were  further  developed  on  both  sides,  the  further  con- 
sideration of  the  subject  was  postponed,  by  mutual  agreement,  to  the 
next  meeting  of  the  Plenipotentiaries. 
Adjourned  to  Friday,  the  1st  of  December. 

ALBERT  GALLATIN, 
W.  HUSRISSON, 
H.  U.  ADDlNaxON. 
A  true  copy.  . 

W,  rf.  Lawrence, 

Secretary  of  Legation. 


PROTOCOL  of  the  third  Conference  between  the  American  and  British 
Flenipotentiaries,  held  at  the  Board  of  Trade,  on  the  ist  December, 
1826. 

Present : — Mr.  Gallatin, 
Mr.  HvsKissoN, 
Mr.  Addington.  , 

The  British  Pleniimtentiaries  took  up  the  subject  of  the  article  of 
settlement  annexed  by  the  American  Plenipotentiary  to  the  protocol 
of  the  first  conference,  and  declared  that,  since,  in  that  article,  the 
49th  parallel  of  north  latitude  was  still  insisted  on  by  the  United 
States  as  the  boundary  line,  the  said  article  was  accordingly  declined 
on  the  part  of  Great  Britain. 

Notwithstanding  a  declaration  on  the  part  of  the  American  Plent- 
potentiary.  that  he  had  no  authority  to  depart  from  the  basis  of  the 
49th  parallel  of  latitude,  as  abovementioned,  yet  as  it  had  been  stated 
by  him,  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,  that  the  line  proposed  by  Great 
Britain,  viewed  without  regard  to  the  question  of  right,  and  merely  as 
a  boundary,  founded  on  convenience,  would  be  inadmissible,  since  it 
left  no  port,  fitted  for  large  ships,  to  the  United  States,  whilst  the 
whole  nnrthera  coast  of  the  territory  was  amply  supplied  with  such ; 
and  the  United  States  could  never  agree  to  a  line  which  would  notgive 
them  a  share  in  such  ports— ^the  British  Plenipotentiaries,  in  order 
to  evince  the  earnest  desire  of  their  Government  to  afford  every  fa- 
cility to  the  final  adjustment  of  the  question  of  boundary,  submitted 
the  following  terms  of  accommodation,  with  a  view  to  their  reference 
to  the  American  Government : 

«  That,  considering  that  the  possession  of  a  safe  and  commodious 
port  on  the  Northwest  Coast  of  America,  fitted  for  the  reception  of 
large  ships,  might  be  an  object  of  great  interest  and  importance  to 
the  United  States,  and  that  no  such  port  was  to  be  found  between  the 
42(1  degree  of  latitude  and  the  Columbia  river,  Great  Britain,  in  still 
adhering  to  that  river  as  a  basis,  was  willing  so  far  to  modify  her  for- 
mer proiwsal,  as  to  concede,  as  far  as  she  was  concerned,  to  the 


^      (t,i 


lii!!' 


!:| 

1 

t 

m 


m'im 


^ 


I 

^■1:' 


,11  I 


iNill 


:■( 


^  [Uoc.  No.  199.]  , 

United  States,  tlu»  'possession  of  Port  Discovery,  a  most  valuable 
harbor  on  the  soutliem  coast  of  De  Fuca'fi  Inlet  j  and  to  annex  tbereto 
all  that  tract  of  country  comprised  within  a  line  to  be  drawn  from 
Cape  Flattery,  along  the  southern  shore  of  Dc  Fuca's  inlet,  to  Point  Wil- 
son, at  the  northwestern  extremity  of  Admiralty  Inlet ;  from  thence, 
along  tlie  western  shore  of  that  inlet,  across  the  entrance  of  Hood's 
Jnlet,  to  the  point  of  land  forming  the  northeastern  extremity  of  tlie 
said  inlet ;  from  thence,  along  the  eastern  shore  of  that  inlet,  to  the 
southern  extremity  of  the  same  ;  from  thence,  direct,  to  the  southern 
point  of  Gray's  Harbor  ;  from  thence,  along  the  shoi-e  of  the  Pacific, 
to  Cape  Flattery,  as  beforomentioned. 

■  "They  were  further  willing  to  stipulate,  that  no  works  should,  at 
any  time,  be  erected  at  the  entrance  of  the  river  Columbia,  or  upon 
the  banks  of  the  same,  that  might  be  calculated  to  impede  or  hinder 
the  free  navigation  thereof  by  the  vessels  or  boats  of  either  party." 
.  The  American  Plenipotentiary,  considering  this  proposal  as  totally 
inadequate,  and  having  declined  even  referring  it  to  his  Government, 
the  British  Plenipotentiaries,  at  the  same  time  that  they  left  the  said 
proposal  on  the  protocol,  protested  againt  the  offer  of  concession  so 
made,  being  ever  taken  in  any  way  to  prejudice  the  claims  of  Great 
Britain,  included  in  her  proposal  of  1824 ;  and  declared  that  the  offer 
now  made,  was  considered  by  the  Britisii  Government,  as  not  called 
for  by  any  just  comparison  of  the  grounds  of  those  claims,  and  of  the 
counter  claim  of  the  United  S*^ates ;  but  rather  as  a  sacrifice  which  the 
British  Government  had  consented  to  make  with  a  view  to  obviate  all 
evils  of  future  difference  in  respect  to  the  territory  west  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains. 

llie  proposition  having,  however,  failed,  they  informed  the  Ameri- 
can Plenipotentiary  that,  at  a  subsequent  conference,  they  should  be 
prepared  to  submit  a  proposal  for  the  i-encwal,  for  a  fresh  term  of  years, 
and  in  a  separate  form,  of  the  provision  relative  to  the  territory  in 
question,  contained  in  the  third  article  of  the  Convention  of  1818. 

The  American  Plenipotentiary  observed,  that  tiie  proposal  contained 
in  the  article  presented  by  him  at  the  first  conference,  and  declined  on 
the  part  of  Great  Britain,  had  also  been  made  solely  with  a  view  to 
terminate,  by  an  amicable  agreement,  all  differences  on  that  subject ; 
and  that  he  likewise  protested  against  that  proposal  being  ever  taken 
in  any  way  to  prejudice  the  claims  of  the  United  States,  as  heretofore 
stated. 
Adjourned  to  Wednesday,  tlie  6th  of  December. 

ALBERT  GALLATIN, 
W.  HUSKISSON. 
H.  U.  ADDINGTON. 
A  true  copy.  -.  ;    "^ 

W.  B.  Lawrence,  /'    ■#  ' 

Secretary  of  Legation.       "^ '  *  "      ; 


X9^' 


•*^   ' 


[Doc.  Wo.  109.] 


4T 


PROTOCOL  of  the  fourth  Conference  of  the  Mierican  and  British  Pie- 
nipotentiarieSf  held  at  the  Board  of  Trade,  on  the  6th  qf  Beeember, 
1826.  ' 

Present : — Mr.  Gallatin,    , 
Mr.  HusKissoN, 
Mr.  Addington. 

The  protocol  of  the  preceding  conference  was  read  over  and  signed. 

The  subject  of  a  renewal  of  the  article  of  the  Convention  of  1818, 
which  provides  for  a  joint  occupancy  of  the  territory  west  of  the  Stony 
Mountains,  was  resumed ;  and,  after  some  general  discussion,  the 
American  Plenipotentiary  observed,  that  he  had  been  authorized  by 
his  instructions,  in  case  no  permanent  boundary  line  could  be  agreed 
on,  to  agree  to  the  renewal  of  the  article  in  question,  for  a  term  not  ex- 
ceeding  ten  years ;  proposing  only  to  omit  so  much  of  the  article  as 
related  to  the  claims  of  other  nations  to  that  territory,  as  the  United 
States  did  not  admit  that  any  other  nation  besides  the  two  contracting 
Powers  had  any  such  claim  at  this  time-— those  of  Spain  and  Russia 
having  been  settled  since  the  year  1818. 

Rut,  as  from,  the  discussion  which  had  taken  place,  it  might  be  ap- 
prehended that  the  two  Governments  did  not  ])erliaps  altogether  agree 
on  the  true  meaning  of  that  article,  and  on  the  extent  of  the  obliga^ 
tions  imposed  by  it  on  both  parties,  he  thought  it  essential  that  no 
agreement  should  be  concluded  without  a  previous  clear  and  mutual 
understanding  in  that  respect.  He  therefore  believed  it  necessary 
that  he  should  refer  the  whole  subject  to  his  Government,  with  sucfat 
new  or  explanatory  provisions  as  tlie  British  Plenipotentiaricij  might 
deem  it  proper  to  propose.  He  could  not  himself  offer  any  new  pr«>- 
posal  for  consideration,  and  would  only  say,  that  any  that  was  calcu- 
lated to  prevent  collision,  and  to  preserve  perfect  harmony  in  that . 
quarter,  would  be  favorably  entertained  by  the  Government  of  the  4 
United  States,  provided  it  did  not  impair  or  affect  their  rights,  nor 
prevent  or  impede  their  making  settlements,  and  enjoying  all  the 
benefits  of  the  joint  occupancy. 

The  British  llenipotentiaries  stated,  in  reply,  tlnit  it  had  never  been 
their  intention  to  propose  any  arrangement  which  should  not  place  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  subjects  of 
Great  Britain,  in  respect  to  the  territory  in  question,  so  long  as  it  con- 
tinued open  to  the  exercise  of  those  rights  which  were  incident  to  a 
state  of  joint  occupancy. 

The  sole  object  of  any  additional  stipulation  which  they  might  have 
to  suggest  for  the  consideration  of  the  American  Plenipotentiary,  would 
be  to  guard  against  possible  misunderstanding  in  respect  to  the  nature 
and  consequences  of  any  acts  that  might  be  done  in  that  territory  by 
cither  party,  whilst  liable  to  be  so  occupied. 

The  British  Plenipotentiaries  added,  that  they  should  certainly  feel 
no  objection  to  furnish  the  American  Plenipotentiary  with  a  full  and 
explicit  statement  of  the  claims  which  Great  Britain  makes,  and  of  the 
obligations  by  which  she  considers  herself  bound  in  respect  to  that 
territory. 


4a 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


.,1 

;    1 
I 

)! 


M 


M 


t  ■... 


;•  »l  |H     .     ' 


m 


The  British  Plenipotentiaries  submitted  to  tlie  American  Plenipo- 
tentiary,  whether,  in  renewing  the  thii  d  article  of  the  Convention  of 
1 8 1 8,  it  might  not  be  desirable  to  extend  that  renewal  to  a  longer  term 
than  ten  years.  They  suggested  twenty,  or  at  least  fifteen  years,  sub- 
ject to  the  understanding  that  the  two  Governments  should  use  their 
best  endeavors  within  that  period  to  adjust  their  present  differeuces 
in  respect  to  the  boundary  :o  be  drawn  between  them  in  the  territories 
in  question.    . 

.*^       ALBERT  GALLATIN, 
.  ,  V      .  W.  HUSKISSON, 

.  V  H.  U.  AUDliNGTON. 

A  true  copy  :  * 

W,  B.  Lawrence,  ,  .  . 

Secretary  of  Legation.  ?'!.,.      ;•»  i.. 


PROTOCOL  of  the  Jifth  Conference  between  the  American  and  Bri' 
tish  Plenipotentiaries,  held  o'  the  Board  of  Trade,  on  the  llthof 
D'ecember,  1826. 

Present: — Mr.  Gallatin,  .     •  ^^*. 

Mr.  HUSKISSON,  .'.iw:  >*«*' ,'»##■  ■v.. 

Mr.  Addington.  '^■■^  .-i'-^t^^^  ■^y    - 

The  protocol  of  the  preceding  conference  was  read  dvcr  and  signed. 

Circumstances  having  prevented  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  from 
submitting,  as  they  had  proposed,  at  this  conference,  a  project  of  Con- 
vention for  the  renewal  of  the  provision  of  the  Convention  of  1818, 
relative  to  th*^  country  west  of  the  Roi^ky  Mountains,  as  alluded  to  in 
the  preceding  pnitocol,  tlie  subject  of  adjustment  of  boundary,  under 
the  fifth  article  of  t^ie  treaty  of  Ghent,  was  entered  upon  by  the  Pleni- 
potentiaries. 

After  some  general  conversation  respecting  the  expediency  of  refer- 
ring to  foreign  arbitration,  as  provided  by  that  treaty,  the  difTerences 
which  had  arisen  on  that  subject,  as  well  as  the  mode  of  regulating  that 
reference,  it  was  agreed  to  postpone  the  further  consideration  of  this 
matter  to  a  future  conference,  in  order  to  give  time  for  further  investi- 
gation of  several  points  connected  with  it. 

The  American  Plenipotentiary  announced  his  having  received  au> 
thority  from  his  Government  to  treat  concerning  the  renewal,  for  a 
further  term  of  ten  years,  of  the  Commercial  Convention  of  1815,  con- 
cluded between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 

Adjourned  to  Saturday,  I6th  of  December. 

ALBERT  GALLATIN, 
W.  HUSKISSON, 
H.  U.  ADDIJNGTON. 
A  true  copy. 

W.  B.  Lawrence, 

Secretary  of  Legatioih 


;!lr 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


40 


PROTOCOL  of  the  sixth  Conference  between  the  ^American  and 
British  Plenipotentiariea»  held  at  the  Board  of  Trade,  on  the  I6th 
of  December,  1826. 

Present — Mr.  Gallatin,       •»  ""  '     . 

Mr.  HrsKis»0N,  • 

-      ""  Mr.  Addington.  .    •     ' 

The  protocol  of  the  preceiling  conference  was  read  over  and  signed. 
The  British  Plenipotentiaries  submitted,  and  annexed  to  the  proto- 
col, the  project  of  a  convention,  (A)  as  alluded  to  in  their  preceding 
conferences,  for  the  renewal,  for  a  fresh  term  of  fifteen  years,  from 
the  date  thereof,  of  the  provisioti  relative  to  the  country  west  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains,  which  was  contained  in  the  Convention  of  London 
of  1818.  This  project  they  accompanied  with  a  statement  (B)  also 
annexed  to  the  protocol  of  the  claims  and  views  of  Great  Britain  re- 
lative to  that  country. 

The  American  Plenipotentiary  took  both  the  abovementioned  pa- 
pers for  reference  to  his  Government,  and  intimated  his  intention  of 
annexing  to  the  protocol  of  the  next  conference,  a  counter-statement  of 
the  claims  ami  views  of  the  United  States  relative  to  the  same  country. 
Adjourned. 

ALBERT  GALLATIN, 
.  W.  HUSKISSON, 

•      ..,  H.  U.  ADDINGTON. 

A  true  copy.  -  '  ,  ? 

W.  B.  Lawrence,  '  -.^  ■  .«'-4::.i:> ;t-i 

Secretary  of  Legation.  '-  ,'"*!• 


^■ 


Draft  of  Convention  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  pro- 
posed by  Lie  British  Plenipotentiaries. 

Whereas,  by  the  third  article  of  the  Convention  concluded  in  Lon- 
don, on  the  thirtieth  of  October,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighteen,  be- 
tween his  Britannic  Majesty  and  the  United  States  of  America,  it  was 
provided  that  any  country  that  might  be  claimed  by  either  of  the  con- 
tracting parties,  on  the  Northwest  Coast  of  America,  should  be  free  and 
ojien,  for  the  term  of  ten  years  frorti  the  date  of  the  signature  of  that 
Convention,  to  tlie  subjects  and  citizens  of  the  two  Powers,  any  terri- 
torial claim  which  either  party  might  have  to  any  part  of  such  country 
being  mutually  reserved  :  His  Britannic  Majesty  and  the  United 
States,  considering  that  the  term  for  which  the  above  provision  was 
to  remain  in  force,  is  now  not  far  from  its  expiration,  and  being 
equally  desirous  to  preclude  all  danger  of  misunderstanding  between 
themselves,  with  respect  to  the  said  country,  have  detertnined  to  re- 
new the  said  provision  ;  for  which  purpose,  they  have  respectively 
named  Plenipotentiaries  to  treat  and  agies  respecting  the  8am« ;  that 
? 


#» 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


'y 


t- 


IS  tu  aay — His  Britannic  M»u<:sty,  the  right  hunurable  William  Hun- 
kisson,  &c.  &c.  &c.  and  Henry  Unwin  Addington,  £sq.,  and  th« 
United  States,  Albert  Oallatin,  who  have  agreed  tn  and  concluded  the 
following  articles  :  i 


Ahticlk  1. 


.* 


It  is  agreed,  that  any  country  which  may  be  claimed  by  either  of 
tlie*contracting  parties,  on^tlie  Northwest  Coast  of  America,  westward 
of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  shall,  together  with  its  harbors,  bays,  creeks, 
and  rivers,  be  free  and  open  for  the  term  of  fifteen  years,  from  the 
date  of  the  ratification  of  the  jirescnt  Convention,  to  the  vessels,  sub- 
jects, and  citizens,  of  the  two  Powers  ;  it  being  well  understood  that 
this  agreement  is  not  to  be  construed  to  the  prejudice  of  any  claim 
which  either  of  tlie  contracting  parties  may  have  to  any  part  of  the 
said  country,  nor  shall  it  be  taVen  to  affect  the  claims  of  any  other 
Power  or  State  to  any  pwt  of  the  said  country  ;  the  only  object  of 
the  high  contracting  parties,  in  conchiding  this  ConTention,  being  to 
prevent  dispatos  and  difTerenccA  behvoen  tliemselves. 


■'v«>U 


AuTH!r;B  II. 


For  the  more  ufl'ectual  prevention  of  such  disputes  hnd  diflei*ences. 
it  is  further  agreed,  that,  during  the  said  term  of  fifteen  years,  neither 
of  the  contracting  parties  shall  assume  or  exercise  any  right  of  ex- 
clusive sovereignty  or  dominion  over  any  part  of  tltc  said  country  ; 
nor  shall  any  settlement  whicti  may  now  exist,  or  which  may  be  here- 
after formed  therein,  by  either  party,  during  the  said  term  of  fifteen 
veal's,  be,  at  any  time,  adduced  in  support,  or  furtiierance  of  any 
claim  to  such  sovereignty  or  dominion. 


iMiii.;,' 


*;i:.:l 


British  Statemeni  annexed  to  the  Vroliycol  aj'  the  Siocth   Conference. 

The  Government  of  Great  Britain,  in  proposing  to  renew,  for  a 
further  term  of  years,  the  third  article  of  the  Convention  of  1818, 
respecting  the  territory  on  the  Northwest  Coast  of  America,  west  of 
the  Rocky  Mountains,  i*cgrcts  that  it  has  been  found  impossible,  in 
the  present  negotiation,  to  agree  upon  a  line  of  boundary,  which 
should  separate  those  parts  of  that  territory,  which  might  hencefor- 
ward be  occupied  or  settled  by  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  from  the 
parts  which  would  remain  open  to  occupancy  and  settlement  by  the 
United  States. 

To  establish  such  a  boundary  must  be  the  ultimate  object  of  both 
countries.  With  this  object  in  contemplation,  and  from  a  persuasion 
that  a  part  of  the  difficulties  which  have  hitherto  prevented  its  attain- 
ment, is  to  be  attributed  to  a  misconception,  on  the  part  of  the  United 
states,  of  the  claims  and  views  of  Great  Britain,  in  regard  to  the 
territory  in  question,  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  deem  it  advisahlt 


[Dor.  No.  199.1 


SI 


to  bring  under  the  notice  of  the  American  PlenipotentiRry  a  full  and 
explicit  exposition  of  those  claims  and  views. 

As  preliminary  to  this  discussion,  it  is  highly  desirable  to  mark« 
distinctly,  the  broad  difference  between  the  nature  of  the  rights  claimed 
by  Great  Britain,  and  those  asserted  by  the  United  States,  in  aspect 
to  the  territory  in  question. 

Over  a  large  portion  of  that  territory,  namely,  from  the  forty^se 
cond  degree  to  the  forty-ninth  degi*ee  of  north  latitude,  the  United 
States  claim  full  and  exclusive  sovereignty. 

Great  Britain  clainu  no  exclusive  savereigniy  over  any  portion  ot 
that  territory.  Her  present  claim,  not  in  respect  to  any  part,  but  to 
the  whole,  is  limited  to  a  right  of  joint  occupancy,  in  common  with 
other  States,  leaving  the  right  of  exclusive  dominion  in  abeyance.     < 

In  other  words,  the  pretensions  of  the  United  States  tend  to  the 
ejection  of  all  other  nations,  and,  among  the  rest,  of  Great  Britain, 
from  all  right  of  settlement  in  the  district  claimed  by  the  United 
States.  -  —  - 

Tiie  pretensions  of  Great  Britain,  on  the  contrary,  tend  to  the  mere 
maintenance  of  her  own  rights,  in  resistance  to  the  exclusive  charac- 
ter of  the  pretensions  of  the  United  States. 

Having  thus  stated  the  nature  of  the  respective  claims  of  the  two 
parties,  tlie  British  Pleniiiotentiaries  will  now  examine  the  grounds 
on  which  those  claims  are  founded. 

The  claims  of  the  United  States  are  urged  upon  three  grounds  : 

ist.  As  resulting  from  their  own  proper  right. 

2dly.  As  resulting  from  a  right  derived  to  them  from  Spain  ;  that 
Power  having,  by  the  treaty  of  Florida,  concluded  with  the  United 
States  in  1819»  ceded  to  the  latter  all  their  rights  and  claims  on  the 
western  coast  of  America  north  of  forty-second  degree. 

3dly.  As  resulting  from  a  right  derived  to  them  from  France,  to 
whom  the  United  States  succeeded,  by  treaty,  in  possession  of  the  pro 
vince  of  Lousiana. 

The  first  right,  or  right  proper  of  the  United  States,  is  founded  on  the 
alleged  discovery  of  the  Columbia  river,  by  Mr.  Gray,  of  Boston, 
who,  in  1792,  entered  that  river,  and  explored  it  to  some  distance  from 
its  mouth. 

To  this  arc  added  the  first  exploration  by  Lewis  and  Clarke,  of  a 
main  branch  of  the  same  river  from  its  source  downwards :  and,  also, 
the  alleged  priority  of  settlement,  by  citizens  of  the  United  States,  of 
the  country  in  the  vicinity  of  the  same  river. 

The  second  right,  or  right  derived  from  Spain,  is  founded  on  the 
alleged  prior  discovery  of  the  region  in  dispute  by  Spanish  navigators, 
of  whom  the  chief  were,  1st,  Cabrillo,  who,  in  154S,  visited  thatcoast 
as  far  as  44°  north  latitude.  Sd,  De  Fuca,  who,  as  it  is  affirmed,  in 
1598,  entered  the  Straits  known  by  his  name,  in  latitude  49°.  Sd.  - 
Guelli,  who,  in  158S,  is  said  to  have  pushed  his  researches  as  high  as 
57°  north  latitude.  4th,  Perez,  and  others,  who,  between  the  years 
1774  and  1792,  visited  Nootka  Sound  and  the  adjacent  coasts. 

The  third  right  derived  from  the  cession  of  Louisiana  to  the  United 


r^  ■^ 


r    I. 


m 


[Doc.  Xo.  19U.] 


M 


nil' ,:,!  i 


i.  i 


'■I'l.! 


1    HI. 


:['^^': 

y;' 


I  :''iL 


States,  is  founded  oh  the  assninption  that  tliat  province,  its  bounda- 
ries never  having  been  exiietly  defined  longitudinally,  may  fairly  be 
'asserted  to  extend  westwai-d  nct'oss  the  Rocky  mountains,  to  the  shoro 
of  the  Pacific. 

Before  the  merits  of  these  respective  claims  are  considered,  it  is 
necessary  to  observe  that  one  only  out  of  the  three  can  be  valid. 

They  are,  in  fact,  claims  obviously  incompatible  the  one  with  the 
other.  If,  for  example,  the  title  of  Spain  by  first  discovery,  or  the 
title  of  France,  as  the  original  possessor  of  Louisiana,  be  valid,  then 
must  one  or  the  other  of  those  kingdoms  have  been  the  lawful  posses- 
sor of  that  territory,  at  the  moment  when  the  United  States  claim  to 
have  discovered  it.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Americans  were  the. 
first  discoverers,  there  is  necessarily  an  end  of  the  Spanish  claim ; 
and  if  priority  of  discovery  constitutes  the  title,  that  of  France  falls 
equally  to  the  ground.  •  Ix  ■■■ 

Upon  the  question,  how  far  prior  discovery  constitutes  a  legal  claim 
to  sovereignty,  the  law  of  nations  is  somewhat  vague  and  undefined. 
It  is,  however,  admitted  by  the  most  approved  writers,  that  mere  ac- 
cidental discovery,  unattended  by  exploration — by  formally  taking 
possession  in  the  name  of  the  discoverer's  sovereign — by  occupation 
and  settlement,  more  or  less  permanent — by  purchase  of  the  territory — 
or  receiving^the  sovereignty  from  the  natives — constitutes  the  lowest 
degree  of  title,  and  that  it  is  only  in  pro])ortion  as  first  discovery  is 
followed  by  any  or  all  of  these  acts,  that  such  title  is  strengthened  and 
confirmed. 

The  rights  conferred  by  discovery,  therefore,  must  be  discussed  on 
their  own  merits. 

But  before  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  proceed  to  compare  the  re- 
lative claims  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  in  this  respect, 
it  will  be  advisable  to  dispose  of  the  two  other  grounds  of  right,  put 
forward  by  the  United  States. 

The  second  ground  of  claim,  advanced  by  the  United  States,  is  the 
cession  made  by  Spain  to  the  United  States,  by  the  treaty  of  Florida, 
in  1819. 

If  the  conflicting  claims  of  Great  Britain  and  Spain,  in  respect  to 
all  that  part  of  the  coast  of  North  America,  bad  not  been  finally  ad- 
Justed  by  the  convention  of  Nootka,  in  the  year  1790,  and  if  all  the 
arguments  and  pretensions,  whether  resting  on  priority  of  discovery, 
or  derived  from  any  other  consideration,  had  not  been  definitively  set 
at  rest,  by  the  signature  of  that  convention,  nothing  would  be  more 
easy  than  to  demonstrate  that  tlie  claims  of  Great  Britain  to  that  coun- 
try, as  opposed  to  those  of  Spain,  were  so  far  from  visionary,  or  arbi- 
tai'ily  assumed,  that  th*  y  established  more  than  a  parity  of  title  to  the 
possession  of  the  country  in  question,  either  as  against  Spain,  or  any 
other  nation. 

Whatever  that  title  may  have  been,  however,  either  on  tlie  part  of 
Great  Britain,  or  on  the  part  of  Spain,  prior  to  the  convention  of 
1790,  it  was  from  thenceforward  no  longer  to  be  traced  in  vague  nar- 
ratives of  discoveries,  several  of  them  admitted  to  be  apocryphal,  but 
in  the  text  and  stipulations  of  that  convention  itself. 


4t    '  li 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


S3 


By  tliat  convention  it  was  agreed  that  all  parts  of  the  Northwest- 
ern Coast  of  America^  not  already  occupied  at  that  time  by  either  of 
the  contracting  parties,  should  thenceforward  be  equally  open  to  the " 
subjects  of  both,  for  all  purposes  of  commerce  and  settlement ;  tho 
sovereignty  remaining  in  abeyance. 

In  this  stipulation,  as  it  has  been  already  stated,  all  tracts  of  coun- 
try claimed  by  Spain  and  Great  Britain,  or  accruing  to  either,  in 
wliatevcr  manner,  were  incltidcd. 

Tho  rights  of  Spain  on  that  coast  were,  by  the  treaty  of  Florida,  iu 
1819,  conveyed  by  Spain  to  tlie  United  States.  With  those  rights  the 
United  States  necessarily  succeeded  to  the  limitations  by  which  they 
were  defined,  and  the  obligations  under  which  they  were  to  be  exer- 
cised. From  those  obligations  and  limitations,  as  contracted  towards 
Great  Britain,  Great  Britain  cannot  be  expected  gratuitously  to  re- 
lease those  countries,  merely  because  the  rights  of  the  party  original-, 
ly  bound,  have  been  transferred  to  a  third  Power. 

The  third  ground  of  claim,  of  the  United  States,  rests  on  the  right 
supposed  to  be  derived  from  the  cession  to  them  of  Louisiana  by  France. 

In  arguing  this  branch  of  the  question,  it  will  not  be  necessary  to 
examine  in  detail  the  very  dubious  point  of  the  assumed  extent  of  that 
province,  since,  by  tho  treaty  between  France  and  Spain,  of  1763,  tlie 
whole  of  that  territory,  defined  or  undefined,  real  or  ideal,  was  ceded 
by  France  to  Spain,  and,  consequently,  belonged  to  Spain,  not  only  in 
1790,  when  the  convention  of  Nootka  was  signed  between  Great  Bri- 
tain and  Spain,  but,  also,  subsequently,  in  1793,  the  period  uf  Gray's 
discovery  of  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia.  11'^  then,  Louisiana  embrac- 
ed the  country  west  of  the  Rocky  mountains,  to  the  south  of  the  49th 
parallel  of  latitude,  it  must  have  embraced  the  Columbia  itself,  which 
that  parallel  intersects  :  and,  consequently,  Gray's  discovery  must 
have  been  made  in  a  country  avowedly  already  appropriated  to  Spain ; 
and,  if  so  appropriated,  necessarily  included,  with  all  other  Spanish 
possessions  and  claims  in  that  quarter,  in  the  stipulations  of  the 
Nootka  convention. 

Even  if  it  could  be  shown,  therefore,  that  the  district  west  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains,  was  within  the  boundaries  of  Louisiana,  that  cir- 
cumstance would,  in  no  way,  assist  the  claim  of  the  United  States. 

It  may,  nevertheless,  be  worth  while  to  expose,  in  a  few  words,  the 
futility  of  the  attempt  to  include  that  district  within  those  boundaries. 

For  this  purpose,  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  the  original  grant 
of  Louisiana,  made  to  De  Crozat,  Ly  Louis  XIV,  shortly  after  its 
discovery  by  La  Salle.  That  province  is  therein  expressly  described 
as  "the  country  drained  by  the  waters  entering, directly  or  indirectly, 
into  the  Mississippi.'*  Now,  unless  it  can  be  shown,  that  any  of  the 
tributaries  of  the  Mississippi  cross  the  Rocky  Mountains  from  west 
to  east,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  any  part  of  Louisiana  can  be 
found  to  tho  west  of  that  ridge. 

There  remains  to  be  considered  the  first  gt'ound  of  claim  advanced 
by  the  United  States  to  the  territory  in  question,  namely,  that  found- 
ed on  their  own  proper  right,  as  first  discovei'ers,  and  occupiers  of 
that  territory. 


I 


^     ', 


S4 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


imi 


*■      !!'■ 


'H  ■•; 


V   iHU 


.•IS    I'  ]-' 


If  the  discovery  of  the  country  in  question,  or  rather  the  mere  en- 
trance into  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia,  by  a  private  American  citizen, 
be,  as  ttic  United  States  assert,  (alttiough  Great  Britain  is  far  from 
admitting  the  correctness  of  the  assertion,)  a  valid  ground  of  national 
and  exclusive  claim  to  all  the  country  situated  between  the  42d  and 
49th  parallels  of  latitude,  then  must  any  preceding  discovery  of  the 
same  country,  by  an  individual  of  any  other  nation,  invest  such  nation 
^vith  a  more  valid,  because  a  prior  claim  to  thai  country. 

Now,  to  set  aside,  for  tlie  present,  Drake,  Cook,  and  Vancouver, 
who  all  of  them  either  took  possession  o{^  or  touched  at,  various  points 
of  the  coast  in  question.  Great  Britain  can  show,  that,  in  1788,  that 
is  four  years  before  Gray  entered  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river, 
Mr.  Meares,  a  Lieutenant  of  the  Royal  Navy,  who  had  been  sentl>y 
the  East  India  Company  on  a  trading  expedition  to  the  Northwest 
Coast  of  America,  had  already  minutely  explored  that  coast,  from  the 
49*  to  the  45°  north  latitude ;  had  taken  formal  possession  of  the 
Straits  of  Dc  Fuca,  in  the  name  of  his  sovereign  ;  had  purchased  land, 
trafficked,  SitiA  formed  treaties  with  the  natives  ;  and  had  actuaUy  en- 
tered the  Bay  of  the  Columbia,  to  the  northern  headland  of  which  he 
gave  the  name  of  Cape  Disappointmentf  a  name  which  it  bears  to  this 
day. 

Dixon,  Scott,  Duncan,  Strange,  and  other  private  British  traders, 
had  also  visited  these  shores  and  countries  several  years  before  Gray; 
but  the  single  example  of  Meares  suffices  to  quash  Gray's  claim  to 
prior  discovery.  To  the  other  navigators  abovementioned,  therefore, 
it  is  unnecessary  to  refer  more  particularly. 

It  may  be  worth  while,  however,  to  observe,  with  regard  to  Meares, 
that  his  account  of  his  voyages  was  published  in  London  in  Jiugust^ 
1790  ;  that  is,  two  years  before  Gray  is  even  pretended  to  have  en- 
tered the  Columbia. 

To  that  account  are  appended,  first,  extracts  from  his  log  book  ; 
secondly,  maps  of  the  coasts  and  harbors  which  he  visited,  in  which 
every  part  of  the  coast  in  question,  including  the  bay  of  the  Columbia, 
{into  which  the  log  expressly  states  that  Meares  entered,)  is  minutely 
laid  down,  its  delineation  tallying,  in  almost  every  particular,  with 
Vancouver's  subsequent  survey,  and  with  the  description  found  in  all 
the  best  maps  of  that  part  of  the  world,  adopted  at  this  moment ; 
thirdly,  the  account  in  question  actually  contains  an  engraving,  dated 
in  August,  1790,  of  the  entrance  of  De  Fuca's  Straits,  executed  after 
a  design  taken  in  June,  1788,  by  Meares  himself. 

With  these  physical  evidences  of  authenticity,  it  is  as  needless  to 
contend  for,  as  it  is  impossible  to  controvert,  the  truth  of  Meares' 
statement. 

It  was  only  on  the  I7th  of  September,  1788,  that  the  Washington, 
commanded  by  Mr.  Gray,  first  made  her  appearance  at  Nootka. 

If,  therefore,  any  claim  to  these  countries,  as  between  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States,  is  to  be  deduced  from  priority  of  the  discovery, 
the  above  exposition  of  dates  and  facts  suffices  to  establish  that  claim 
in  favor  of  Great  Britain,  on  a  basis  too  firm  to  be  shaken. 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


«5 


It  must,  indeed,  be  admitted,  that  Mr.  Gray,  finding  himself  in  the 
bay  formed  by  the  discharge  of  the  waters  of  the  Columbia  into  the 
Pacific,  was  the  first  to  as(;ertain  that  this  bay  formed  the  outlet  of  a 
great  river,  a  discovery  which  had  escaped  Lieutenant  Meares,  wh«n» 
in  1788,  four  years  before,  he  entered  the  same  bay. 

But  can  it  be  seriously  urged  that  this  single  step  in  the  progress  of 
discovery,  not  only  wholly  supersedes  the  prior  discoveries,  both  of  the 
ba>  and  the  coast  by  Lieutenant  Meares,  but  equally  absorbs  the  subse- 
quent exploration  of  the  river  by  Captain  Vancovver,  for  near  a  hun- 
dred miles  above  the  point  to  which  Mr.  Gray's  ship  had  proceeded, 
the  formal  taking  possession  of  it  by  that  British  navigator,  in  the  name 
of  his  Sovereign,  and  also  all  the  other  discoveries,  explorations,  and 
temporary  possession  and  occupation  of  the  ports  and  harbors  on  the 
coast,  as  well  of  the  Pacific  as  within  the  Straits  of  De  Fuca,  up  to  the 
49th  parallel  of  latitude  ? 

This  pretension,  however,  extraordinaiy  as  it  is,  does  not  embrace 
the  whole  of  the  claim  which  the  United  States  build  upon  the  limited 
discovery  of  Mr.  Gray,  namely,  that  the  bay  of  which  Cape  Disap- 
pointment is  the  northernmost  headland,  is,  in  fact,  the  embouchure 
of  a  river.  That  mere  ascertainment,  it  is  asserted,  confers  on  the 
United  States  a  title,  in  exclusive  sovereignty,  to  the  whole  extent  of 
country  drained  by  such  river,  and  by  all  its  tributary  streams. 

In  iUi,,  '01 1  of  this  very  extraordinary  pretension,  the  United  States 
allege  '■<  t  >cedentof  grants  and  charters  accorded  in  former  times 
to  com  ,  "  and  individuals,  by  various  European  sovereigns,  over 
several  parts  of  the  American  continent.  Amongst  other  instances 
are  adduced  the  charters  granted  by  Elizabeth,  James  1st,  Charles 
2d,  and  George  2d,  to  sundry  British  subjects  and  associations,  as 
also  the  grant  made  by  Louis  14th  to  De  Crozat  over  the  tract  of 
country  watered  by  the  Mississippi  and  its  tributaries. 

But  can  such  charters  be  considered  an  acknowledged  part  of  the 
Law  of  Nations  ?  Were  they  any  thing  more,  in  fact,  than  a  cession 
to  the  grantee  or  grantees,  of  whatever  rights  the  grantor  might  sup- 
pose himself  to  possess,  to  the  exclt'^ion  of  other  subjects  of  the  same 
sovereign  ?  Charters  binding  and  restraining  those  only  who  were 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  grantor,  and  of  no  force  or  validity, 
against  the  subjects  of  other  States,  until  recognized  by  treaty,  and 
thereby  becoming  a  part  of  international  law. 

Had  the  United  States  thought  proper  to  issue,  in  1790,  by  virtue  of 
their  national  authority,  a  charter  granting  to  Mr.  Gray  the  whole 
extent  of  country  wate»*ed,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  the  river  Colum- 
bia, such  a  charter  would,  no  doubt,  have  been  valid  in  Mr.  Gray's 
favor,  as  against  all  other  citizens  of  the  United  States.  But  can  it 
be  supposed,  that  it  would  have  been  acquiesced  in  by  cither  of  the 
Powers — Great  Britain  and  Spain — which,  in  that  same  year,  were 
preparing  to  contest  by  arms  the  possession  of  the  very  country  which 
would  have  been  the  subject  of  such  a  grant  ? 

If  the  right  of  sovereignty  over  the  territory  in  question,  accrues 
to  the  United  States  by  Mr.  Gray's  discovery,  how  happens  it  that 


56 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


.  * 


1:1 '' 


I  111 


'1  \J/ 


»    i, 


It 


.1'  I 


'•I:-  . 


■ri 


they  never  protested  against  the  violence  done  to  that  right  by  the 
two  Powers,  who,  by  the  convention  of  1790,  regulated  thoir^  respect- 
ive rights,  in  and  over  a  district  so  belonging,  as  it  is  now  asserted, 
to  the  United  States  ? 

This  claim  of  the  United  States  to  the  territory  drained  by  the  Co- 
lumbia, and  its  tributary  streams,  on  the  ground  of  one  of  theircitizens 
having  been  the  first  to  discover  the  entrance  of  that  river,  has  been 
here  so  far  entered  into,  not  because  it  is  considered  to  be  necessarily 
entitled  to  notice,  since  the  whole  country  watered  by  the  Columbia 
falls  within  the  provisions  of  the  convention  of  1790,  but  because  the 
doctrine  above  alluded  to  has  been  put  forward  so  broadly,  and  with 
such  confidence  by  the  United  States,  that  Great  Britain  considered  it 
equally  due  to  herself  and  to  other  Powers  to  enter  her  protest  against  it 

The  United  States  further  pretend,  that  their  claim  to  the  country  in 
question  is  strengthened  and  confirmed  by  the  discovery  of  the  sources 
of  the  Columbia,  and  by  the  exploration  of  its  course  to  the  sea  by 
Lewis  and  Clarke,  in  1805-6. 

In  reply  to  this  allegation,  Great  Britain  affirms,  and  can  distinctly 
prove,  that,  if  not  before,  at  least  in  the  same  and  subsequent  years, 
her  Northwestern  Trading  Company  had,  by  means  of  their  agent, 
Mr.  Thomson,  already  established  thoir  posts  among  the  Flat  Head 
and  Kootanie  tribes,  on  the  head  waters  of  the  northern  or  main  branch 
of  the  Columbia,  and  were  gradually  extending  them  down  the  princi- 
pal stream  of  that  river ;  thus  giving  to  Great  Britain,  in  this  particu- 
lar, again,  as  in  tiie  discovery  of  the  mouth  of  the  river,  a  title  to  parity 
at  least,  if  not  priority  of. discovery,  as  opposed  to  the  United  States. 
It  was  from  those  posts,  that  having  heard  of  the  American  establish- 
ment forming  in  1811,  at  tlie  mouth  of  the  river,  Mr.  Thomson  has- 
tened thither,  descending  the  river,  co  ascertain  the  nature  of  that  es- 
tablishment. 

Some  stress  having  been  laid  by  the  United  States,  on  the  restitu- 
tion to  them  of  Fort  George  by  the  British,  after  the  termination  of 
the  last  war,  which  restitution  they  i*epresent  as  conveying  a  virtual 
acknowledgment  by  Great  Britain  of  the  title  of  the  United  States  to 
the  country  in  which  that  post  was  situated ;  it  is  desirable  to  state, 
somewhat  in  detail,  the  circumstances  attending  that  restitution. 

In  the  year  1815,  a  demand  for  the  restoration  of  Fort  George  was 
first  made  to  Great  Britain,  by  the  American  Government,  on  the 
plea  that  the  first  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent  stipulated  the  res- 
titution to  the  United  States  of  all  posts  and  places  whatsoever,  taken 
from  them  by  the  British  during  the,  war,  in  vhich  description  Fort 
George  (Astoria)  was  included. 

For  some  time  the  British  Government  demurred  to  comply  with 
tlie  demand  of  the  United  States,  because  they  entertained  doubts  how 
far  it  could  be  sustained  by  the  construction  of  the  treaty. 

In  the  first  place,  the  trading  post,  called  Fort  Astoria,  (or  Fort 
George,)  was  not  a  national  possession  ;  in  the  second  place  it  was 
not  a  military  post ;  and  thirdly,  it  was  never  captured  from  the  Ame- 
ricans by  the  British. 


[Doc.  No.  109.] 


57 


It  was,  in  fact,  conveyed  in  regular  commercial  transfer,  and  accom- 
panied by  a  bill  of  sale  for  a  sum  of  money,  to  the  British  company 
who  purchased  it,  by  the  American  company,  who  sold  it  of  their  own 
free  tvill. 

It  is  true,  that  a  British  sloop  of  war  had,  about  that  time,  been  sent 
to  take  possession  of  that  post,  but  she  arrived  subsequently  to  the 
transaction  abovementioned,  between  the  two  companies,  and  found 
the  British  company  already  in  legal  occupation  of  their  self-acquired 
property. " 

In  consequence,  however,  of  that  ship  having  been  sent  out  with 
hostile  views,  although  those  views  were  not  carried  into  effect,  and  in 
order  that  not  even  the  shadow  of  a  reflection  might  be  cast  upon  the 
good  faith  of  the  British  Government,  the  latter  determined  to  give 
the  most  liberal  extension  to  the  terms  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  and,  in 
1818,  the  purchase  which  the  British  company  had  made  in  1813, 
was  restored  to  the  United  States. 

Particular  care,  however,  was  taken  on  this  occasion,  to  prevent  any 
misapprehension  as  to  the  extent  of  the  concession  made  by  Great 
Britain. 

Viscount  Castlereagh,  in  directing  the  British  Minister  at  Washing- 
ton to  intimate  the  intention  of  the  British  Government  to  Mr.  Adams, 
then  Secretary  of  State,  uses  these  expressions,  in  a  despatch  dated 
4th  of  February,  1818. 

«  Y^ou  will  oi^servc,  that,  whilst  this  Government  is  not  disposed  to 
contest,  with  the  American  Government,  the  point  of  possession  as  it 
«f()od  in  the  Columbia  river  at  the  moment  of  the  rupture,  they  are 
not  2)repared  to  admit  the  validity  of  the  title  of  the  Oovernment  of  the 
United  States  to  this  settlement. 

« In  signifying,  therefore,  to  Mr.  Adams,  the  full  acquiescence  of 
<<  your  Government  in  the  re-occupatio»o/'  the  limited  position,  which 
<<  the  United  States  held  in  that  river  at  the  breaking  out  of  the 
'<  war,  you  will,  at  the  same  time,  assert,  in  suitable  terms,  the  claim 
<<  of  Great  Britain  to  that  territory,  upon  which  the  American  settle- 
^'  ment  must  be  considered  as  an  encroachment.'' 

This  instruction  was  executed  verbally  by  the  person  to  whtmi  it 
,was  addressed. 

The  following  is  a  transcript  of  the  act  by  which  the  Fort  was  de- 
ilivcred  up  by  the  British,  into  the  hands  of  Mr.  Prevost,  the  Ame- 
I  rican  agent. 

'<  In  obedience  to  the  command  of  H.  R.  H.  the  Prince  Regent, 
'*  signified  in  a  despatch  from  the  Right  Honorable  the  Earl  Bathurst, 
*^  addressed  to   the  partners  or  agents  of  the  Northwest  Company, 
'<  bearing  date  the  27th  of  January,  1818,  and  in  obedience  to  asub- 
-'  '♦  sequent  order,  dated  the  26th  July,  from  W.  H.  Sheriff,  Esq.  Cap- 
•<  tain  of  H.  M.  ship  Andromache  :  We,  the  undersigned,  do,  in  con- 
formity to  the  first  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  restore  to  the 
I"  Government  of  the  United  States,  through  its  agent,  J.  P.  Pre- 
vost, Esq.  the  settlement  of  Fort  George  on  the  Columbia  river. 
8 


n 


rt'i' 


11  .i.:-!ri 


\]^WI 


hi 


i 

1! 


• 


:1^:1: 


-18  [IJoc.  Xo.  199.] 

<<  Given  under  out*  lianilH  in  ttiiilicate,  at  Fort  Georgei  (Columbia 
«  River,)  this  6th  day  of  Octuber,  1 818. 

'*F.  HICKEY, 
<<  Captain  H.  M.  Ship  Blossom. 
•'J.KEITH, 
.    ■   V       .  .  .     .  '*  OftheJS*.  W.  Co." 

Tlie  following  is  the  despatch  from  Earl  Bathurst  to  the  partners  of 
the  North  West  Company,  referred  to  in  the  above  act  of  cession  : 

<<  Downing  Street,  ar/ZtJatmory,  1818. 

<<  Intelligence  having  been  received  that  the  United  States*  sloop  of 
*<  war  Ontario  has  been  sent  by  the  American  Government  to  esta- 
<<  blish  a  settlement  on  the  Columbia  River,  which  was  held  by  that 
<<  State,  on  the  breaking  out  of  the  last  war,  I  am  to  acquaint  you, 
'<  that  it  is  the  Prince  Regent*s  pleasure,  {without  however  admitting 
**  the  right  of  that  Government  to  the  possession  in  question)  that, 
"  in  pursuance  of  the  first  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  due  facility 
«  should  be  given  to  the  re*ocrupation  of  the  said  settlement  by  the 
«  officers  of  the  United  States ;  and  I  am  to  desire,  that  you  would 
<«  contribute  as  much  as  lies  in  your  power  to  the  execution  of  His 
**  Royal  Highness's  comtnands. 

*'  I  have,  &c.  &c. 

"BATHURST." 

"  To  the  partners  or  agents  of  the  Northwest  Company,  residing  on  the  Columbia 
River." 

,    The  above  documents  put  the  case  of  the  restoration  of  Fort  Astoria 
in  too  clear  a  light  to  require  further  observation. 

The  case,  then,  of  Great  Britain,  in  respect  to  the  country  west  of 
the  Rocky  Mountains,  is  shortly  this  : 

Admitting  that  the  United  States  have  acquired  all  the  rights  which 
Spain  possessed,  up  to  the  treaty  of  Florida,  either  in  virtue  of  dis- 
covery, or,  as  is  pretended,  in  right  of  Louisiana,  Great  Britain  main- 
tains that  the  nature  and  extent  of  those  rights,  as  well  as  of  the 
rights  of  Great  Britain,  arc  fixed  and  defined  by  the  Convention  of  I 
Nootka ;  that  these  rights  are  equal  forbot'^  -  '  'ies  ;  and  that,  in  suc- 
ceeding to  the  rights  of  Spain,  under  tli^t  "ention,  the  United 
States  must  also  Iiavc  succeeded  to  the  obligat  mis  which  it  impo.t;ed. 

Admitting,  further,  the  discovery  of  Mr.  Gra^  to  the  extent  already 
stated.  Great  Britain,  taking  the  whole  line  of  \\e  coast  in  question, 
with  its  straits,  harbors,  and  bays,  has  stronger  cis  ims,  on  the  ground 
of  prior  discovery,  attended  with  acts  of  occupancy  and  settlement, 
than  the  United  States. 

Whetlier,  therefore,  the  United  States  rest  their  claims  upon  the 
title  of  Spain,  or  upon  that  of  prior  discovery,  or  upon  both,  Great 
Britain  is  entitled  to  place  her  claims  at  least  upon  a  parity  with  those 
of  the  United  States. 


CBoc.  No.  IM.J 


59 


'Fort  Astoria 


It  is  a  fact,  admitted  by  the  United  States,  tliat,  with  the  exception 
of  the  Columbia;  river,  there  is  no  river  which  opens  far  into  the  iti' 
teriorf  on  the  whole  western  coast  of  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

In  the  interior  of  the  territory  in  question,  the  subjects  of  Great 
Britain  have  had,  for  many  ycar^l,  numerous  settlements  and  trading 
posts  ;  several  of  these  posts  on  the  tributary  streams  of  the  Columbia^ 
several  upon  the  Columbia  itself,  some  to  the  northward,  and  others 
to  the  southward,  of  that  river ;  and  they  navigate  flie  Columbia  as  the 
sole  channel  for  the  conveyance  of  their  produce  to  the  British  sta- 
tions nearest  the  sea,  and  for  the  shipment  of  it  from  thence  to  Great 
Britain.  It  is  also  by  the  Columbia,  and  its  tributary  streams,  that 
these  posts  and  settlements  receive  their  annual  supplies  from  Great 
Britain. 

In  the  wiiole  of  the  territory  in  question,  the  citizens  of  th*)  United 
States  have  not  a  sinj^le  settlement  or  trading  post.  They  do  not  use 
that  river,  either  for  the  purpose  of  transmitting  or  receiving  any  pro- 
duce of  their  own,  to  or  from  other  parts  of  the  world. 

In  this  state  of  the  relative  rights  of  the  two  countries,  and  of  the 
relative  exercise  of  those  rights,  the  United  States  claim  the  exclusive 
possession  of  both  banks  of  the  Columbia,  and,  consequently,  that  of 
the  river  itself;  offering,  it  Is  true,  to  concede  to  British  subjects  a 
conditional  participation  in  that  navigation,  but  subject,  in  any  case, 
to  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  and  sovereignty  of  the  United  States. 

Great  Britain,  on  her  part,  offers  to  make  the  river  the  boundary ; 
each  country  retaining  the  bank  of  the  river  contiguous  to  its  own  ter- 
ritories ;  and  the  navigation  of  it  remaining  for  ever  free,  and  upon  a 
footing  of  perfect  equality  to  both  nations. 

To  carry  into  effect  this  proposal,  on  our  part.  Great  Britain  would 
have  to  give  up  posts  and  settlements  south  of  the  Columbia.  On  the 
part  of  the  United  States,  there  could  be  no  reciprocal  withdrawing 
from  actual  occupation,  as  thei>e  is  not,  and  never  has  been,  a  single 
Amerioan  citizen  settled  north  of  the  Columbia. 

The  United  States  decline  to  accede  to  this  proposal,  even  when 
Great  Britain  has  added  to  it  the  further  offer  of  a  most  excellent  har- 
bor, and  an  extensive  tract  of  country  on  the  Straits  of  De  Fuca — a 
sacrifice  tendered  in  the  spirit  of  accommodation,  and  forthe  sake  of  a 
final  adjustment  of  all  differences,  but  which,  having  been  made  in 
this  spirit,  is  not  to  be  considered  as  in  any  degree  recognizing  a 
claim  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  or  as  at  all  impairing  the  ex- 
isting right  of  Great  Britain  over  the  post  and  territory  in  question. 

Such  being  the  result  of  the  recent  negotiation,  it  only  remains  for 
Great  Britain  to  maintain  and  uphold  the  qualified  rights  which  she 
now  possesses  over  the  whole  of  the  territory  in  question.  These  rights 
arc  recorded  and  defined  in  the  Convention  ofNootka.  1'hey  embrace 
the  right  to  navigate  llie  waters  of  those  countries,  the  right  to  settle 
in  and  over  any  part  of  them,  and  the  right  freely  to  trade  with  the  in- 
habitants and  occupiers  of  tlie  same. 

These  rights  have  been  peaceably  exorcised  ever  since  the  date  of 
that  Convention  ;  that  is,  for  a  period  of  near  forty  years.  Under  that 


60 


[Doc.  No.  199.1 


ji 


Convention,  valuable  British  interests  have  grown  up  in  those  coun< 
tries.  It  is  fully  admitted  that  the  United  States  possess  the  same 
rights,  although  they  have  been  exercised  by  them  only  in  a  single 
instance,  and  have  nut,  since  the  year  18  is,  been  exercised  at  all.  But 
beyond  these  rights  they  possess  none. 

To  the  interests  and  establishments  which  British  industry  and  en- 
terprise have  created,  Great  Britain  owes  protection.  That  protection 
will  be  given,  both  a.s  regards  settlement  and  freedom  of  trade  and 
navigation,  \vith  every  attention  no^to  infringe  the  co-ordinate  rights 
of  the  United  States — it  being  the  eai  west  desire  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment, so  long  as  the  joint  occupancy  continues,  to  regulate  its  own  ob- 
ligations by  the  same  rule  which  governs  the  obligations  of  any  other 
occupying  party. 

Fully  sensible,  at  tlie  same  time,  of  the  desirableness  of  a  more  de- 
finite settlement,  as  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  the 
British  Government  will  be  ready,  at  any  time,  to  terminate  the  pre- 
sent state  of  joint  occupancy  by  an  agreement  of  delimitation;  but  such 
arrangement  only  can  be  admitted  as  shall  not  derogate  from  the  rights 
of  Great  Britain,  as  acknowledged  by  treaty,  nor  prejudice  the  ad- 
vantages which  British  subjects,  under  the  same  sanction,  now  enjoy 
in  that  part  of  the  world. 


I' I 


PROTOCOL  of  the  seventh  ConJ'erence  of  the  American  and  British 
Plenipotentiaries,  held  at  the  Board  of  I'rade,  on  the  I9th  Deceni' 
her,  1826. 

Present — Mr.  Gallatin, 
Mr.  Addington. 

The  American  Plenipotentiary  delivered  and  annexed  to  the  proto- 
col the  counter-statement  of  the  claims  and  views  of  tlic  United  States 
relative  to  the  country  west  of  the  Rocky  or  Stony  Mountains. 
Adjourned. 

ALBERT  GALLATIN, 
H.  U.  ADDINGTON. 
A  true  copy. 

W.  B.  Lawkejwce. 

Secretary  of  Legation. 


^imerican   Counter-statement  annexed  to  the  Protocol  of  the  seventh 

Conference. 

The  American  Plenipotentiary  has  read  with  attention  the  exposi- 
tion of  the  claims  and  views  of  Groat  Britain,  in  regard  to  the  terri- 
tory west  of  the  Rocky  or  Stony  Mountains,  annexed  by  the  British 
Plenipotentiaries  to  the  protocol  of  the  last  conference;  and  assures 
them  that  it  will  receive  from  his  Government  all  the  consideration  to 
which  it  is  so  justly  entitled. 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


'41^' 


'  the  seventh 


lie  will  not  make  any  observations  on  that  part  of  the  exposition, 
which,  as  explanatory  of  the  views  of  the  British  Government  in  re- 
fcrence  to  a  continued  joint  occupancy,  he  can  only  refer  to  his  Go- 
vernment. The  remarks  he  will  now  offer,  are  necessarily  limited  to 
the  respective  claims  of  the  two  countries,  and  to  the  proposals  for  a 
definitive  arrangement  which  have  been  made  by  each  party. 

Great  Britain  claims  no  exclusive  sovereignty  over  any  portion  of 
the  territory  in  question.  Her  claim  extends  to  the  whole,  but  is 
limited  to  a  right  of  joint  occupancy  in  common  with  other  States, 
leaving  the  right  '>^  "xclusive  dominion  in  abeyance.  She  insists  that 
her'sand  Spain's  .itlicting  claims  were  finally  adjusted  by  tiie  con- 
vention of  5iiootka,  in  1790;  that  all  the  arguments  and  pretensions, 
whether  resting  upon  priority  of  discovery,  or  derived  from  any 
other  consideration,  were  dejinitively  set  at  rest  by  that  convention  ; 
that,  from  its  date,  it  was  only  in  its  text  and  stipulations  that  the 
title,  either  on  her  part  or  on  that  of  Spain,  was  to  be  traced ;  and 
that  it  was  agreed  by  that  convention,  that  all  the  parts  of  the  North- 
west Coast  ol  America,  not  previously  occupied  by  either  party,  should 
thenceforwanl  be  C(|ually  open  to  the  subjects  of  both,  for  all  pur- 
poses of  commerce  and  settlement — the  sovereignty  remaining  in 
abeyance. 

It  is  then  declared,  that,  in  reference  either  to  the  rights  derived  to 
the  United  States  from  Spain,  by  virtue  of  the  treaty  of  1819,  or  to 
that  supposed  to  be  derived  from  tlie  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  which 
province  did,  in  the  year  1790,  belong  to  Spain,  tlie  United  States  have, 
with  these  rights,  necessarily  succeeded  to  the  limitations  by  which 
they  were  defined,  and  the  obligations  under  which  they  were  to  be 
exercised,  in  conformity  to  the  stipulations  of  the  Nootka  Convention. 
Whence  it  is  generally  inferred,  that,  whilst  it  is  fully  admitted  that 
the  United  States  possess  the  same  rights  as  Great  Britain,  over  the 
country  in  question,  namely  :  to  navigate  its  waters,  to  settle  in  any 
partoHt,  and  freely  to  trade  with  the  inhabitants  and  occupiers  of  the 
same  ;  beyond  these  rights,  the  United  States  possessed  none,  and 
that  they  cannot  therefore  claim  exclusive  sovereignty  over  any  part 
of  the  said  territory. 

It  will,  in  the  first  place,  be  observed,  that,  admitting  that  conven- 
tioji  to  be  still  in  force,  and  of  whatever  construction  it  may  be  sus- 
ceptible, this  compact  between  Sjiain  jind  Great  Britain  could  only 
bind  the  parties  to  it,  and  can  affect  the  claim  of  the  United  States  so 
far  only  as  it  is  derived  fi'om  Spain.  If,  therefore,  ihey  have  a  claim 
in  right  of  tlieir  own  discoveries,  explorations,  and  settlements,  as  this 
cannot  bo  impaired  by  the  Nootka  Convention,  it  becomes  indispensa- 
bly necessary,  in  order  to  defeat  such  claim,  to  show  a  better  prior 
title  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  derived  from  some  other  consider- 
ation than  the  stipulations  of  that  Convention.  But,  on  examining 
that  instrument,  it  w  ill  be  found  to  be  apparently  merely  of  a  com- 
mercial nature,  and  in  no  shape  to  affect  tlie  question  of  distinct  juris- 
diction and  exclusive  sovereignty. 

It  was  agreed  by  that  Convention,  ''that  the  respective  subjectM  (»f 


to 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


i!  i  • 


mW. 


I  i    V 


'nil: 


iiil'l 


■f^ 


itii 
II 

ii 


I 


<<ti.e  two  parties  should  not  be  disturbed  or  molested,  eitiier  in  navi- 
**  gating  on  carrying  on  their  fisheries  in  the  Pacific  Ocean,  or  in  tlie 
*^  iSouth  Seas,  or  in  landing  on  the  coast  of  those  seas,  in  places  nut 
<*  already  occupied,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  their  commerce 
<'  with  the  natives  of  tlie  country,  orof  making  settlements  there."  And 

further,  ^<that  in  all  places ,  wherever  the  subjects  of  either  shall 

*«havc  made  settlements  since  the  month  of  April,  1789,  or  shall 
<'  hereafter  make  any,  the  subjects  of  the  other  shall  have  free  access, 
**  and  shall  carry  on  their  trade  without  any  disturbance  or  moles- 
♦«  tation. 

It  Is  difficult  to  believe,  on  reading  those  provisions,  and  recollect' 
ing  in  what  cause  the  Convention  originated,  that  any  other  settle- 
ments could  have  been  contemplated  than  such  as  were  connected  with 
the  commerce  to  be  carried  on  with  the  natives.  Indeed,  it  is  as  be- 
ing only  of  a  commercial  nature,  that  the  Mootka  Convention  may  be 
positively  asserted  to  be  now  in  force ;  the  commercial  treaties  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  Spain  having,  subsequent  to  the  war  which 
had  intervened,  been  alone  renewed  by  the  treaty  of  July,  1814. 

Admitting,  however,  that  the  word  **  settlement,"'  was  meant  in  its 
most  unlimited  sense,  it  is  evident  that  the  stipulations  had  not  for 
object  to  settle  the  territorial  claims  of  the  parties,  and  had  no  con- 
nexion with  an  ultimate  partition  of  the  country,  for  the  purpose  of 
permanent  colonization. 

Those  stipulations  permitted  promiscuous  and  intermixed  settle- 
ments every  where,  and  over  the  whole  face  of  the  country,  to  the 
subjects  of  both  parties ;  and  even  declared  every  such  settlement, 
made  by  either  party,  in  a  degree  common  to  the  other.  Such  a  state 
of  things  is  clearly  incompatible  with  distinct  jurisdiction  and  sove- 
reignty. The  Convention,  therefore,  could  have  had  Jio  such  object  in 
view,  as  to  fix  the  relations  of  the  contracting  Powers  in  that  respect. 
On  that  subject  it  established  or  changed  nothing,  but  left  the  parties 
where  it  found  them,  and  in  jtossession  of  all  such  rights,  whether  de- 
rived from  discovery,  or  from  any  other  consideration,  as  belonged  to 
each,  to  be  urged  by  each,  whenever  the  question  of  permanent  and 
separate  possession  and  sovereignty  came  to  be  discussed  between 
them. 

It  is,  indeed,  expressly  admitted  that  the  Convention  provided  for 
commerce  and  settlements,  leaving  the  soverdgnUj  in  abeyance.  And 
Great  Britain,  at  this  time,  claims  only  a  riglit  of  joint  occupancy,  in 
common  with  other  nations,  leaving  the  right  of  exclusive  dominion 
in  abeyance.  It  is  not  perceived  how  it  can,  at  the  same  time,  be  as- 
serted that  the  arguments  and  pretensions  of  both  parties  were  defini- 
tively set  at  rest  by  the  Convention,  and  that  it  is  o!ily  in  its  text  and 
stipulations  that  the  title  on  cither  side  is  now  to  be  traced. 

Commerce  and  settlements  might,  indeed,  be  made  by  either  party, 
during  the  joint  occupav.cy,  without  regard  to  their  respective  preten- 
sion or  title,  from  whatever  consideration  derived.  But  since  the 
sovereignty,  since  the  right  of  exclusive  dominion,  has  been  left  in 
abeyance,  that  right  over  any  part  of  the  country,  to  whichever  party 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


m 


le  time,  be  as* 


belonging,  bas  not  been  extinguisbed,  but  only  suspended,  and  must 
revive  to  its  full  extent  wbenevei*  that  joint  occupancy  may  cease. 

Whenever,  tlieretbrc,  a  final  line  of  demarcation  becomes  th<^  sub^ 
jcct  of  discussion,  the  United  States  have  a  right,  notwithstanding, 
and  in  conformity  to  the  Nootka  Convention,  to  appeal,  in  support  of 
their  claims,  not  only  to  their  own  discoveries,  but  to  all  the  rights 
derived  from  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  and  from  their  treaty  of 
1819  with  Spain,  in  the  same  maimer  as  if  that  Convention  had  never 
been  made.  The  question  to  be  examined  is,  whether  those  claims 
are  supported  by  the  laws  and  usages  of  nations. 

It  may  bo  admitted  as  an^abstract  principle,  that,  in  the  origin  of 
society,  first  occupancy  and  cultivation  were  the  foundation  of  the 
rights  of  private  property  and  of  national  sovereignty.  But  that 
principle,  on  which  principally,  if  not  exclusively,  it  would  seem  that 
the  British  Government  wishes  to  rely,  could  be  permitted,  in  either 
case,  to  operate  alone  and  without  restriction,  so  lung  only  as  the  ex- 
tent of  vacant  territory  was  such,  in  proportion  to  population,  that 
there  was  ample  room  for  every  individual,  and  for  every  distinct 
community,  or  nation,  without  danger  of  collision  with  others.  As 
in  every  society,  it  had  soon  become  necessary  to  make  laws,  regu- 
lating the  manner  in  which  its  members  should  be  permitted  to  occu- 
py and  to  acquire  vacant  land  within  its  acknowledged  boundaries ; 
so,  also,  nations  found  it  indispensable  for  the  preservation  of  peace, 
and  for  the  exercise  of  distinct  jurisdiction,  to  adopt,  particularly  af- 
ter the  discovery  of  America,  some  general  rules,  which  should  de- 
termine the  important  previous  question,  <<  who  had  a  right  to  occu- 
py  ?»' 

The  two  rules  generally,  perhaps  universally,  recognised  and  con- 
secrated by  the  usage  of  nations,  have  flowed  from  the  nature  of  the 
subject. 

By  virtue  of  the  first,  prior  discovery  gave  a  right  to  occupy,  pro- 
vided that  occupancy  took  place  within  a  reasonable  time,  and  was  ul- 
timately followed  by  permanent  settlements,  and  by  the  cultivation  of 
the  soil. 

In  conformity  with  the  second,  the  right  derived  from  prior  discov- 
ery  and  settlement,  was  not  confined  to  the  spot  so  discovered  or  first 
settled.  The  extent  6f  territory  which  would  attach  to  such  first  dis- 
covery or  settlement  might  not,  in  every  case,  be  precisely  determin- 
ed. But  that  the  first  discovery,  and  subsequent  settlement  within  a 
reasonable  time,  of  the  mouth  of  a  river,  particularly  if  none  of  its 
branches  had  been  explored  prior  to  such  discovery,  gave  the  right  of 
occupancy,  and,  ultimately,  of  sovereignty,  to  the  whole  country  drain- 
ed by  such  river  and  its  several  branches,  has  been  generally  admit- 
ted. And  in  a  question  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 
her  acts  have,  with  propriety,  been  appealed  to,  as  showing  that  the 
principles  on  which  they  rely,  accord  with  her  own. 

It  is,  however,  now  contended  that  the  British  charters,  c^iiLtending, 
in  most  cases,  from  the  Atlantic  Ocean  to  the  South  Seas,  must  be 
considered  as  cessions  of  the  sovereign  to  certain  grantees,  to  the  ex- 


64 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


1 1  -''I 


mm 


i'iihil 


elusion  only  of  his  otiicr  subjects,  and  as  of  no  validity  against  the 
subjects  of  otiiei'  States.  This  construction  docs  not  appear  either  to 
have  been  that  intended  at  the  time  by  the  grantors,  nor  to  have 
governed  the  subsequent  conduct  of.Grcat  Britain. 

By  excepting  from  the  grants,  as  was  generally  the  case,  such  lands 
as  were  already  occupied  by  the  subjects  of  other  civilized  nations, 
it  was  clearly  implied  that  no  other  exception  was  contemplated,  and 
that  the  grants  were  intended  to  include  all  the  unoccupied  lands  with- 
in their  respective  boundaries,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  persons  or 
nations  whatsoever.  In  point  of  fact,  the^whole  country  drained  by  the 
several  rivers  emptying  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  the  mouths  of  which 
were  within  those  charters,  has,  from  Hudson's  Bay  to  Florida,  and, 
it  is  believed,  without  exception,  been  occupied  and  held  by  virtue  of 
those  charters.  Not  only  has  this  principle  been  fully  confirmed, 
but  it  has  been  notoriously  enforced,  much  beyond  the  sources  of  the 
rivers  on  which  the  settlements  were  formed.  The  priority  of  the 
French  settlements  on  the  rivers  flowing  westwardly  from  the  Al- 
leghany Mountains  into  the  Mississippi,  was  altogether  disregarded; 
and  the  rights  of  the  Atlantic  Colonies  to  extend  beyond  those  moun- 
tains, as  growing  out  of  the  contiguity  of  territory,  and  as  asserted  in 
the  earliest  charters,  was  effectually  and  successfully  enforced. 

It  is  true,  that  the  two  general  rules  which  have  been  mentioned 
might  often  conflict  with  each  other.  Thus,  in  the  instance  just  al- 
luded to,  the  discovery  of  the  main  branch  of  the  Mississippi  includ. 
ing  the  mouth  of  that  river,  and  the  occupation  of  the  intervening  Pro- 
vince of  Louisiana  by  •^  lother  nation,  gave  rise  at  last  to  a  compro- 
mise of  those  conflicting  claims,  and  induced  Great  Britain  to  restrciin 
hers  within  narrower  limits  than  those  originally  designated. 

But  it  i^  the  peculiar  character  of  the  claim  of  the  United  States, 
that  it  is  founded  on  both  principles,  which  in  this  case  unite  both  in 
its  support,  and  convert  it  into  an  incontestible  right.  It  is  in  vain 
that,  in  order  to  avert  that  conclusion,  an  attempt  is  made  to  consider 
the  several  grounds  on  which  that  right  is  urged,  as  incompatible  one 
with  the  other,  as  if  the  United  States  were  obliged  to  select  only  one 
and  to  abandon  the  others.  In  different  hands  the  several  claims 
would  conflict  one  with  the  other  :  Now  united  in  the  same  Power, 
they  support  each  other.  The  possessors  of  Louisiana  might  have 
contended,  on  the  ground  of  contiguity,  for  the  adjacent  territory  on  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  with  the  discoveries  of  the  coast  and  of  its  main  rivers. 
The  several  discoveries  of  the  Spanish  and  American  navigators  might 
separately  have  been  considered  as  so  many  steps  in  the  progress  of 
discovery,  and  giving  only  imperfect  claims  to  each  party.  AH  those 
various  claims,  from  whatever  consideration  derived,  are  now  brought 
united  against  the  pretensions  of  any  other  nation. 

1st.  The  actual  possession  and  populous  settlements  of  the  valley  of 
the  Mississippi,  including  Louisiana,  and  now  under  one  sovereignty, 
constitute  a  strong  claim  to  the  westwardly  extension  of  that  Province, 
over  the  contiguous  vacant  territory,  and  to  the  occupation  and  sove- 
reignty of  the  country  as  far  as  the  Pacific  Ocean,     If  some  trading 


[Doc.  No.  199.;] 


65 


3,  nor  to  have 


factories  on  the  sliores  of  Hudson's  Bay,  have  been  considered  by 
Great  Britain  as  giving  ai(  v^cluHive  right  of  occupancy,  as  far  an  the 
Rocky  Mountains  ;  if  the  infant  Nettlcmcnts  on  the  more  Southern  At- 
lantic shores,  justified  a  claim  thoncc  to  the  South  Seas,  uiid  wliich  was 
actually  enforced  to  the  Mississippi ;  that  of  the  millions  already  with- 
in reach  of  those  seas,  cannot  consistently  he  resisted.  For  it  will  not 
be  denied  that  the  extent  of  contiguous  territory,  to  which  an  actual 
settlement  gi\ips  a  prioi-  right,  must  depen<l,  in  a  considerable  drfj;rcc, 
on  the  magnitude  and  population  of  thatsettlrment,  and  on  the  iVility 
with  which  the  vacant  adjacent  land  may,  within  a  short  time,  'be  oc- 
cupied, settled,  and  cultivated,  by  such  iiopulntion,  as  compared  with 
the  probability  of  its  being  thus  occupied  and  settled  from  any  other 
quarter. 

It  has  been  objected  that,  in  tlie  grant  of  I^o'dsiana  to  Crozpt,  by 
Louis  XIV,  that  Province  is  dcscribtMl  as  <»tii.  country  d»'ain«d  by 
the  waters  emptying,  directly  or  indirectly,  into  the  Mississippi,*'  ex- 
cluding thereby,  by  implication,  the  couniry  drained  by  t  <v5  waters 
emptying  into  the  Pacilic. 

Crozat's  grant  was  not  for  the  wliolc  of  the  Province  ol  Louisitvi, 
as  it  was  afterwards  extended  by  France  herself,  and  as  it  is  n<>'  ieid 
by  the  United  Sttites.  It  was  bounded  in  that  grant  of  17 '  2,  by  Caro- 
lina to  the  east,  by  New  Mexico  to  the  west,  and  on  tlic  n;'  th  by  the 
Illinois,  which  were  then  part  of  Canada^  The  must  nortl  jrl>  branches 
of  the  Mississippi  embraced  it)  the  grant,  were  the  Ohio,  at  that  time 
called  Wabash,  by  the  French,  and  the  Missouri,  the  true  course  of 
which  was  not  known  at  that  time,  and  the  sources  of  whicii  were  nut 
supposed  to  extend  north  of  the  42d  parallel  of  latitude.  Noterritory 
on  the  west  of  the  Mississippi  was  intended  to  be  includeni  in  the  grant 
north  of  that  parallel;  and  as  New  Mexico,  which  bounded  it  on  the 
west,  was  understood  to  extend  even  farther  north,  it  was  impossible 
that  any  territory  should  have  been  included  west  of  the  sources  of 
the  rivers  emptying  into  the  Mississippi. 

All  the  territory  north  of  the  42d  parallel  of  latitude,  claimed  by 
France,  was  included  at  that  time,  not  in  Lo  i  iina,  but  in  the  gov-  » 
ernment  of  New  France,  as  Canada  was  thesi « .illcd.  And  by  refer- 
ring to  the  most  authentic  French  maps,  it  will  be  seen  that  New 
France  was  made  to  extend  over  the  territory  drained,  or  supposed  to 
be  drained,  by  rivers  entering  into  the  South  Seas.  The  claim  to  a 
westwardly  extension  to  those  seas,  v.  as  thus  early  asserted  as  part, 
not  of  Louisiana,  but  of  New  France.  The  King  had  reserved  to 
himself,  in  Crozat's  grant,  t^e  right  of  enliirging  the  government  of 
Louisiana.  This  was  done  by  an  ordonnancc  dated  in  the  year!  7 1 7, 
which  annexedjthe  Illinois  to  it ;  and,  from  that  time,  the  province  ex- 
tended as  far  as  the  most  northern  limit  of  the  French  possessions  in 
North  America,  and  thereby  west  of  Canada  or  New  France.  The 
settlement  of  that  northern  limit,  still  further  strengthens  the  claim 
of  the  United  States  to  the  territory  west  of  the  Korky  Mountains. 

The  limits  between  the  northerly  possessions  of  Great  Britain,  in 
North   America,  and  those  of  France,  in  the  same  quarter,  namely, 
9 


i0 


[Dot.  No.  199] 


'1f\;!i' 


n 


.' \! 


:li  '11' 


jl:!iii! 


\")i 


Canada  and  Louisiana*  were  determined  by  commissionei's,  appointed 
in  pursuance  of  the  Treaty  of  UtVeclit.  ^Fjrom  the  coast  of  Labrador 
to  a  certain  point  north  of  Lake  Superior,  those  ligiits  were  fixed  ac- 
cording to  certain  metes  and  bounds,  and  from  that  point  the  line  of 
demarcation  was  agreed  to  extend  indefinitely  due  west,  along  the  for- 
ty ^ninth  parallel  of  north  latitude.  It  was  in  conformity  with  that  ar- 
rangement that  the  United  States  did  claim  that  parallel  as  the  north- 
ern boundary  of  Louisiana.  It  has  been,  accordingly,  thus  settled,  as 
far  as  the  Stony  Mountains,  by  the  Convention  of  1818,  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  ;  and  no  adequate  reason  can  be  giv- 
en why  the  same  boundary  should  not  be  continued  as  far  as  the  claims 
of  the  United  States  do  extend  ;  that  is  to  say,  as  far  as  the  Pacific 
Ocean.  This  argument  is  not  weakened  by  the  fact  that  the  British 
settlements  west  of  the  Stony  Mountains  are  solely  due  to  the  exten- 
sion of  those  previously  formed  on  the  waters  emptying  into  Hudson's 
Bay  ;  and  it  is  from  respect  to  a  demarcation,  considered  as  binding 
on  the  parties,  thttt  the  United  States  had  consented  to  ccmfine  their 
claim  to  the  forty-ninth  parallel  of  latitude,  namely,  to  a  territory  of 
the  same  breadth  as  Louisiana  east  of  the  Stony  Mountains,  although, 
as  foimded  on  prior  discoveries,  that  claim  would  have  extended  much 
further  north. 

2dly.  The  United  States  have  an  undoubted  right  to  claim  by  virtue 
both  of  the  Spanish  discoveries  and  of  their  own.  Setting  aside  all 
those  which  are  not  supported  by  authentic  evidence,  some  of  the  most 
important  were  made  by  Spanish  navigators  prior  to  Cook's  voyage. 
In  1774,  Perez,  in  the  Spanish  corvette  Santiago,  discovered  Nootka 
Sound  in  latitude  49°  30',  and  sailed  to  the  fifty-filth  degree,  discover- 
ing Lougara  Island  and  Perez  (now  called  Dixi)n's)  Entrance,  north 
of  Qiteen  Charlotte  Island.  In  1775,  Quadra,  in  the  Spanish  schoon- 
er Felicidad.  of  whic!)  Alaurelle  was  pilot,  discovered  various  ports 
between  the  fifty-fit; h  and  fifty  eighth  degree,  and  explored  the  coast 
from  42°  to  54°,  landing  at  several  places,  imposing  names  to  some, 
and  not  being,  at  any  time,  hardly  more  than  ten  leagues  from  the 
shore. 

In  other  Spanish  voyages  of  a  subsequent  date,  those  of  Arteaga 
and  Quadra  in  1779,  and  of  Martinez  and  Haro  in  1786,  various  other 
parts  of  the  Northwest  Coast  were  explored,  as  far  north  as  the  six- 
tieth degree  of  north  latitude. 

The  Straits  of  Fuca  were  discovered,  or  again  found  in  1787,  by 
captain  Barclay,  of  the  Imperial  £agle,  a  vessel  fitted  out  at  Ostcnd. 
The  ciitrame  was,  in  1788,  again  visited  by  the  English  Captains 
Meares  and  Duncan.  In  the  same  year,  Captain  Gray,  of  the  Ameri- 
can  r>Io<M)  Washington,  (who  arrived  at  Nootka  in  September,  coming 
from  the  south,  where  he  had  landed,)  penetrated  fifty  miles  up  the 
straits.  They  were  explored  in  1791,  by  the  Spanish  Captains  Quim- 
pa  and  Eliza,  bovond  the  50th  degree  of  latitude.  Their  complete 
survey,  and  t!ie  discovery  of  the  northern  outlet,  in  1792,  are  due 
principaii^  to  Captain  Vancouver,  viho  sailed  through  them  in  compa* 
ny  with  the  Sjianish  vessels  Sutil  and  Mexicana. 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


«r; 


The  (lisrovcry,  which  belongs  exclusively  to  the  United  States,  and 
in  theii'  own  riglit,  is  that  of  the  river  Columbia. 

Tiic  continuity  of  the  coast  from  the  42d  to  the  48th  degree  oriati- 
tude,  hud  been  ascertained  by  the  voyage  of  Quadra,  in  1775,  and 
confirmed  by  that  of  Captain  Cook  in  1778.  The  object  of  discovery 
thenceforth,  was  that  of  a  large  river,  which  should  open  a  communi- 
cation with  the  interior  of  the  country.  This  had  escaped  Quadra, 
who  had  sailed  in  sight  of  the  entrance  afterwards  discovered.  Mcares 
failed  likewise  in  his  attempt  in  the  year  1788  to  make  the  discovery. 
Captain  Vancouver  \yas  not  more  fortunate.  After  having  also  sailed 
along  the  coast  from  south  to  north,  to  the  48th  degree,  he  recorded 
in  his  journal  of  the  29th  of  April,  1792*  which  he  had  too  much  pro- 
bity afterwards  to  alter,  his  opinion,  tliat  there  was  no"  large  river 
south  of  48%  but  only  small  creeks.  On  the  ensuing  day,  he  met  at 
sea  with  Captain  Gray,  then  commanding  the  American  ship  «'  C')lum- 
bia,"  who  informed  him  of  the  existence  of  tite  river,  at  the  nifiiith  of 
which,  he  (Gray)  had  been  for  several  days  without  being  able  to 
enter  it. 

Captain  Vancouver  proceeded  to  B'uca's  Straits,  and  Captain  Gray 
returned  to  the  south,  where  he  completed  his  discovery,  having,  on 
the  nth  May,  entered  the  river  which  bears  the  name  of  his  ship,  and 
ascended  it  upwards  of  twenty  miles.  He  then,  having  also  discover- 
ed Gray's  harbor,  went  to  Nootka  Sound,  where  he  again  met  with 
captain  Vancouver,  to  whom  he  communicated  his  discoveries,  and 
gave  him  a  rough  chart  of  tl)e  river.  With  this  information  one 
of  captain  Vancouver's  officers  was  sent  to  take  a  survey  of  Gray's 
harbor,  and  anotlier  that  of  the  Columbia  river,  whic!i  he  ascended 
about  eight  miles  higher  up  than  Gray. 

Yet  in  order  to  found  a  claim  derived  from  a  share  in  the  discovery, 
that  of  Captain  Gray,  is  called  only  a  step  in  the  progress  of  disco- 
very ;  and  it  is  attempted  to  divide  its  merit  between  him,  Meares, 
and  Captain  Vancouver's  officer. 

It  nuist  again  be  repeated,  that  the  sole  object  of  discovery  was 
"  the  river,"  and,  coming  from  sea,  the  mouth  of  the  river.  Meares 
only  followed  Quadra's  track.  Had  he  suggested  or  suspected  the 
existence  of  a  river,  when  he  was  near  its  entrance,  it  would  have  been 
a  step  in  the  progress  of  discovery.  So  far  from  it,  that,  in  his  map, 
he  has  laid  the  presumed  mouth  of  the  great  river  of  the  west,  of  the 
traditional  Oregon,  of  the  real  Columbia,  in  the  Straits  of  Fuca.  The 
very  names  which  he  imposed,  Cape  Disajjpointment  and  Deception 
Bay,  attest  his  failure. 

Captain  Vancouver  having  completed  his  survey  o^that  part  of  the 
coast,  with  a  conviction  that  no  large  river  emptied  there  into  the 
ocean,  would  not  have  explored  it  again  had  he  not  received  the  in- 
formation from  Ca])tain  Gray,  of  his  discoveries  ;  a»id,  in  fact,  in  his 
second  visit  to  that  quarter,  he  surveyed,  or  caused  to  be  surveyed, 
only  the  harbor  and  the  river  which  had  been  indicated  by  him.  The 
Lieutenant  sent  to  the  Columbia,  and  who  never  would  have  gone 
there  had  it  not  been  for  ("aptain  Gray's  information,  performed,    no 


I, ' 


^.■•^'%< 


y  "'■* 


11 


ji 


i!' 


'^•Li; 


■III 
y.'!i 


■4, 

-'■<  l! 


.1  'ir'lif 


68 


[Dod.  No.  199.1 


doubt,  ^vith  fidelityv  the  iiieclianical  duty  of  taking  the  aonndingfl  one 
hundred  miles  up  its  course.  In  that  consists  liis  sole  merit ;  in  the 
discovery  ho  had  not  tiie  slightest  share.  The  important  services  ren- 
dered to  navigation  and  to  science,  by  that  officer,  and  by  Captain 
Vancouver,  are  fully  acknowledged  ;  and  their  well-earned  reputation 
cannot  be  increased  by  ascribing  to  them  what  exclusively  belongs  to 
another. 

Louisiana  having  been  acquired  by  the  United  States  in  1803,  an 
expedition  was  immediately  ordered  by  Government  to  examine  its 
western  districts.  In  the  course  of  this,  Captains  Lewis  and  Clarke 
ascended  the  Missouri  to  its  source,  crossed  the  Rocky  Mountains, 
and  explored  the  course  of  the  Columbia,  from  its  most  eastern  sources 
to  its  mouth,  where  they  arrived  on  the  6th  of  November,  1805. 
There  they  erected  the  works  called  Fort  Clatsop,  and  wintered  in 
1 805-1 806.  And  thus  was  the  discovery  of  the  river  commenced  and 
completed  by  the  United  States,  before,  as  it  is  firmly  believed,  any 
settlement  liad  been  made  on  it,  or  any  of  its  branches  been  explored 
by  any  other  nation. 

This  is  corroborated  by  the  statement  of  the  British  Flenipotentia> 
ries.  After  having  given,  as  the  date  of  Lewis  and  Clarke's  explora- 
tion, not  the  year  1805,  but  the  years  1805-1806,  thoy  assert  that,  if 
not  before,  at  least  in  the  same  and  subsequent  years,  Mr.  Thomson 
had  alrea«ly  established  a  post  on  tlie  head  waters  of  the  northern  or 
main  branch  of  the  Columbia.  Had  that  post  been  established  in 
1805,  before  Lewis  and  Clarke's  exploration,  another  and  more  dis- 
tinct mode  of  expression  would  have  been  adopted.  But  it  cannot  be 
seriously  contended  that,  if  Mr.  Thonison  had,  in  that  year,  reached 
one  of  the  sources  of  the  Columbia,  north  of  the  50th  degree  of  lati- 
tude; this,  compared  with  the  complete  American  exploration,  would 
give  to  Great  Britain  "a  title  to  parity,  at  least,  if  not  priority  of 
discovery,  as  o])pased  to  the  United  States." 

In  the  year  1810,  Mr.  Astor,  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  fitted 
out  two  expeditions  for  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  ;  one  by  sea,  and 
the  other  by  land,  from  the  Missouri.  In  March,  1811,  the  establish- 
ment of  Astoria  was  accordingly  commenced  near  the  mouth  of  the 
river,  before  any  British  settlement  had  been  made  south  of  the  49th 
parallel  of  latitude.  From  that  principal  post,  several  other  settle- 
ments  were  formed  ;  one  of  them,  contrary  to  the  opinion  entertained 
by  the  British  I'lenipotentiaries.  at  the  mouth  of  the  Wanahata,  seve- 
ral hundred  miles  up,  and  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Columbia. 

These  establishments  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  British  during  the 
war;  and  that  of  Astoria  has  since  been  formally  restored  in  confor- 
mity with  the  Treaty  of  Ghent.  On  the  circumstances  of  that  restitu- 
tion, it  is  sufhcient  to  observe,  that,  with  the  various  despatches  from 
and  to  the  olKrers  of  the  British  Government,  the  United  States  have 
no  concern;  tiitit  it  is  not  stated  how  the  verbal  communications  of 
tlie  Bi'itish  Minister  at  Washington  were  received,  nor  whether  the 
American  Government  consented  to  accept  the  restitution,  with  the 
reservation,  as  expressed  in  the  despatches  to  that  Minister  from  his 


[Doc.  No   199.]  *    :  Ji 

Government ;  and  that  the  only  written  document  affecting  the  re- 
storation, known  to  be  in  possession  of  that  of  the  United^Statcs,  is  the 
act  of  restoration  itself,  which  contains  no  exception,  reservation,  or 
protest,  whatever. 

It  has  thus  been  established,  that  the  Columbia  river  was  first  dis- 
covered by  the  United  States ;  that  that  first  discovery  was  attended 
by  a  complete  exploration  of  the  river,  from  its  most  easterly  source 
to  the  north,  before  any  such  exploration  had  been  madt  by  any  other 
nation ;  by  a  simultaneous  actual  occupation  and  possession,  and  by 
subsequent  establishments  and  settlements  made  within  a  reasonable 
time,  and  which  have  been  interrupted  only  by  the  casualties  of  war. 

Tliis,  it  is  contended,  gives,  according  to  the  acknowledged  law 
and  usages  of  nations,  a  right  to  the  whole  country  drained  by  that 
river  and  by  its  tributary  streams,  which  could  have  been  ojiposed  on- 
ly by  the  conflicting  claim  derived  from  the  possession  of  Louisiana. 
Both  united  and  strengthened  by  the  other  Spanish  and  American  dis- 
coveries along  the  coast,  (and,  without  reference  to  the  cession  of  the 
pretensions  of  Spain,  derived  from  other  considerations,)  establish,  it 
is  firmly  believed,  a  stronger  title  to  the  country  above  described,  and  . 
along  the  coast  as  far  north,  at  least,  as  the  49tlr  parallel  of  latitude, 
tlian  has  ever,  at  any  former  time,  been  asserted  by  any  nation  to  va- 
cant territory. 

Before  the  subject  is  dismissed,  it  may  be  proper  to  observe,  that 
the  United  States  had  no  motive,  in  the  year  1790,  to  protest  against 
tlic  Nootka  Convention,  since  their  exclusive  right  to  the  territory  on 
the  Pacific  originated  in  Gray's  discovery,  which  took  ;;lace  only  in 
1793.  The  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  and  their  last  treaty  with  Spain, 
are  still  posterior. 

On  the  formality  called  « taking  possession,"  though  no  actual  pos- 
session of  the  country  is  taken,  and  on  the  validity  of  sales  of  land 
and  surrender  of  sovereignty  by  Indians,  who  are  for  the  first  time 
brought  into  contact  with  civilized  men ;  who  have  no  notion  of  what 
they  mean  by  either  soverignty  or  property  in  land  ;  who  do  not  even 
know  what  cultivation  is ;  with  whom  it  is  difficult  to  communicate, 
even  upon  visible  objects;  the  American  Plenipotentiary  thinks  that 
he  may  abstain  from  making  any  remarks. 

Whilst  supporting  their  claim  by  arguments,  which  they  think  con- 
clusive, the  Uniteil  States  have  not  been  inattentive  t  j  the  counter 
claims  of  Great  Britain. 

They,  indeed,  deny  that  the  trading  posts  of  the  Northwest  Com- 
pany give  any  title  to  the  territory  claimed  by  America,  not  only 
because  no  such  post  was  established  within  the  limits  claimed,  when 
Ihc  first  American  settlement  was  made,  but  because  the  title  of  the 
United  States  is  considei'ed  as  having  been  complete,  before  any  of 
those  traders  had  appeared  on  the  waters  of  the  Columbia.  It  is  also 
believed,  that  mere  factories,  established  solely  for  the  purpose  of 
trafficking  with  the  natives,  and  without  any  view  to  cultivation  and 
permanent  settlemojit,  cannot,  of  themselves,  and  unsupported  by 
any  other  consideration,  give  atty  bortor  title  to  domininii  and  abso- 


'  f  I 


70 


'  1) 

hti 


1  ■  I' 


|l|-i. 


i'i-li:: 


^     iS  ^s   II 


!•■' 


[l)oc.  No.  199.] 


lute  sovereignty,  than  similar  establishments  made  in  a  ci^Iized 
country. 

But  the  United  States  have  paid  due  regard  to  tlie  diseoveries  by 
which  the  British  navigators  have  so  eminently  distinguished  them- 
selves, to  those,  perhaps  nut  less  remarkable,  made  by  land  from  the 
uppur  lakes  ot' the  Pacific,  and  to  the  contiguity  of  the  possessions  of  > 
Great  Britain,  on  the  waters  of  Hudson's  Bay,  to  the  territory  bor- 
dering on  that  Ocean.  Above  all,  thuy  have  been  earnestly  desirous 
to  preserve  and  cherish,  not  only  the  peaceful,  but  the  friendly  rela- 
tions whicli  happily  subsist  between  the  two  countries.  And,  with 
that  object  in  view,  their  offer  of  a  permanant  line  of  demarcation  has 
been  made,  under  a  i)erfect  conviction  that  it  was  attended  with  the 
sacrifice  of  a  portion  of  what  they  might  justJyjclaim. 

Viewed  as  a  matter  of  mutual  convenience,  and  with  equal  desire, 
on  both  sides,  to  avert,  by  a  definitive  line  of  delimitation,  any  possi- 
ble cause  of  collision  in  that  quarter,  every  consideration  connected 
with  the  subject  may  be  allowed  its  due  weight. 

If  the  present  state  of  occupancy  is  urged,  on  the  part  of  Great  Bri- 
tain, the  probability  of  the  manner  in  which  the  territory  west  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains  must  be  settled,  belongs  also  essentially  to  the  sub- 
ject. Under  whatever  nominal  s<ivercigiity  that  country  may  be 
placed,  and  whatever  its  ultimate  destinies  may  be,  it  is  nearly  re- 
duced to  a  cej'tainty,  that  it  will  be  almost  exclusively  peoplet4  by  the 
surplus  population  of  the  United  States.  The  distance  from  Great 
Britain,  and  the  expense  incident  to  emigration,  forbid  the  expecta- 
tion of  any  being  practicable,  from  that  quarter,  but  on  a  compara- 
tively small  scale.  Allowing  the  rate  of  increase  to  be  the  same  in 
the  United  States,  and  in  the  North  American  British  possessions,  the 
difference  in  the  actual  population  of  both  is  such,  that  the  progressive 
rate  which  would,  witliin  forty  years,  add  three  millions  to  these, 
would,  within  the  same  time,  give  a  positive  increase  of  more  than 
twenty  millions  to  the  United  States.  And  if  circumstances,  aris- 
ing from  localities  and  habits  have  given  superior  facilities  to 
British  subjects,  of  extending  their  camtnvrcc  with  the  natives,  and 
to  that  expansion  which  iias  the  appearance,  and  the  appearance  only,  of 
occupancy ;  the  slower  but  .sure  j)rogre.ss  and  extension  of  an  agri- 
cultural population,  will  be  regulated  by  distance,  by  natural  obstacles, 
and  by  its  own  amount.  The  primitive  right  of  acquiring  property 
and  sovereignty  by  occupancy  alone,  admitting  it  to  be  unlimited  in 
theory,  cannot  extend  beyond  the  capacity  of  occupying  and  cultivat- 
ing the  soil. 

It  may  also  be  observed,  that,  in  reality,  tlicre  were  but  three  na- 
tions whicli  had  both  the  right  and  the  power  to  colonize  the  territory 
in  question  :  Great  Britain,  the  United  States,  and  Spain,  or  now  the 
new  American  States.  These  are  now  excluded,  in  consequence  of 
the  treaty  of  1819.  The  United  States,  who  have  purchased  their 
right  for  a  valuable  consideration,  stand  now  in  their  place,  and,  on 
that  ground,  in  the  view  entertained  of  the  subject  by  the  British 
Government,  are.  on  a  final  partition  of  the  ••ountry,  fairly  entitled  to 
two  sliares. 


ij::  :'I8^ 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


II  a  civilized 


Under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  as  stated  on  both  sides,  the 
United  States  offer  a  line,  which  leaves  to  Great  Britain  by  far  the 
best  poHion  of  the  fur  trade,  the  only  object,  at  this  time,  of  the  pur- 
suits of  her  subjects  in  that  quarter,  and  a  much  greater  than  her  pro- 
portionate share  of  the  country,  with  a  view  to  its  permanent  settle- 
ment, if  the  relative  geographical  situation  and  means  of  colonizing  of 
both  parties  are  taken  into  consideration.  B'rom  the  42d  degree  of 
north  latitude  to  the  Observatory  Inlet,  in  about  55°  30',  there  is  a 
front  ON  the  Pacific  of  almost  fourteen  degrees  of  latitude,  which  the 
49th  parallel  divides  into  two  nearly  equal  parts.  The  mouth  of  the 
Columbia  river,  if  accepted  as  a  boundary,  would  leave  less  than  one- 
third  to  the  ^Tnited  States. 

The  offer  c  the  fi*ee  navigation  of  that  river,  when  the  whole  ter- 
ritory, draineb  jy  all  its  tributary  streams,  including  the  northernmost 
branches,  might  have  been  justly  claimed,  would  have  also  given  to 
Great  Biitain,  in  time  of  peace,  all  the  commercial  advantages  which 
it  can  afford  to  the  Americans. 

In  the  case  of  a  war,  (which  God  forbid,)  whatever  might  be  the 
result  on  shore,  the  line  proposed  by  Great  Britain,  even  with  the 
addition  of  the  detached  and  defenceless  territory  she  offered,  would 
leave  the  sea  border  at  her  mercy,  and  the  United  States  without  a 
single  port :  whilst  the  boundary  proposed  by  them  might,  during 
that  period,  deprive  Great  Britain  only  of  the  use  of  the  port  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Columbia,  and  would  leave  in  the  secure  possession  of 
numerous  seaports,  perhaps  less  convenient,  but  still  affording  ample 
mc^ns  of  commun -cation  with  the  interior.  That  line,  indeed,  with 
such  slight  recipro^  al  modifications  as  the  topography  of  the  country 
may  indicate,  would  establish  the  most  natural  and  mutually  defen- 
sible boundary  that  can  be  found,  and  for  that  reason  the  least  liable  to 
collision,  and  the  best  calculated  to  perpetuate  peace  and  harmony  be> 
tween  the  two  Powers. 


but  three  na- 
the  territory 
n,  or  now  the 
onsequence  of 
rchased  their 
dace,  and,  on 
y  the  British 
Iv  entitled  to 


PROTOCOL  of  the  eighth  Conference  between  the  American  and  Bri- 
tish Plenipotentiaries,  held  at  the  Board  of  Trade,  on  the  £4<A  of 
May,  1827. 

Present : — Mr.  Galiatiit, 
Mr.  HcsKissoy, 
Mr.  Addington. 

The  American  Plenipotentiary  stated,  that,  having  submitted  to  his 
Government  the  protocols  of  the  precedingjConferences,  on  the  subject 
of  the  country  west  of  the  Stony  Mountains,  he  was  instructed  to  ex- 
press the  regret  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  that  the  pio- 
posal  of  the  boundary  line  in  that  quarter,  which  had  been  offered  on 
their  part,  should  have  been  declined,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  repeat. 


72 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 


f 


1! 


'■.■  \i>\ 


.1,1  i 


■if:  !    'i 


'■I 


i'  ',:i 


in  the  name  of  his  Government,  the  declaration,  wiiicli  he  had  already 
made  in  substance,  that  the  American  Government  does  not  hold  itself 
bound  hereafter,  in  consequence  of  any  proposal  which  it  has  hereto- 
fore made,  to  agree  to  the  line  which  has  been  so  proposed  and  reject* 
ed,  but  will  consider  itself  at  liberty  to  contend  for  the  full  extent  of 
the  claims  of  the  United  States. 

The  American  Plenipotentiary  further  stated,  that  the  projet  of 
Convention  for  the  renewal,  for  a  fresh  term  of  years,  of  the  provision 
relative  to  the  said  country,  contained  in  the  Convention  of  1818, 
'which  had  been  offered  at  the  sixth  conference  by  the  British  Pleni- 
potentiaries, had  been  taken  into  serious  consideration  by  his  Gk»vern> 
ment;  that,  though  animated  by  the  same  motives  which  had  suggest* 
ed  the  offer,  they  could  not  agree  to  the  provisions  of  the  second  arti- 
cle of  the  projet ;  and  that,  after  a  deliberate  examination  of  the  sub- 
ject, unable  to  propose  any  satisfactory  modification,  and  i)ersuaded 
that  both  Governments  might  confidently  rely  on  the  faithful  execu- 
tion of  the  former  agreement,  they  still  believed  that,  upon  the  whole, 
a  simple  renewal  of  the  third  article  of  the  Convention  of  1818,  for  a 
limited  term  of  years,  as  stated  by  the  American  Plenipotentiary^  at 
the  fourth  conference,  was.  for  the  present,  the  most  eligible  measure 
that  could  be  adopted.  This  renewed  agreement  would,  as  intimated 
by  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  conference, 
be  subject  to  the  understanding,  that  the  two  Governments  should 
unite  their  endeavors,  within  the  period  assigned  for  its  duration,  to 
make  a  definitive  settlement  of  the  boundary  to  be  drawn  between 
them  in  the  territories  in  question. 

The  British  Plenipotentiaries  took  the  communication  of  the  Ame- 
rican Plenipotentiary  for  reference  to  their  Government,  but  declared 
that,  since  the  American  Plenipotentiary  had  reasserted,  in  the  name 
of  his  Government,  claims  of  an  undefined  extent  to  the  Northwest 
Coast  of  America,  they,  equally,  on  the  part  uf  Great  Britain,  hereby 
renewed  the  protest  relative  to  the  /  ^aims  of  Great  Britain  over  that 
same  territory,  which  they  had  inserted  in  the  protocol  of  their  third 
conference. 

The  question  of  boundary,  under  the  fifth  article  of  the  treaty  of 
Ghent,  was  then  entered  upon,  and,  after  some  general  conversation, 
postponed  for  further  consideration  to  a  future  conference. 

Adjourned. 

ALBERT  GALLATIN, 
W.  HUSKISSON, 
H.  U.  ADDINGTON. 

A  true  copy. 

W.  B.  Lawubnck,  . 

Secretary  of  Legation. 


,  ! 


[Hoc.  No.  199.] 


Extract  from  the  Protoool  of  the  ninth  Conference,  betxveen  the  Jlmerican 
and  British  PlenipotentiarieSf  held  at  the  Board  of  TradCf  on  the  1  ^h 
June,  1827.  .  ' 

Present: — Mr.  Galxatiw,  ;' 

.  '     .,'  Mr.  IIusKissoN,   - 

Mr.  Addington.    ,    * 

The  protocol  of  the  preceding  conference  was  read  over  and  signed. 

The  British  Plenipotentiaries,  in  expressing  their  regret  at  the 
communication  made  to  them  by  the  American  Plenipotentiary  at  the 
preceding  conference,  that  his  Government  had  declined  acceding  to 
the  additional  article  of  the  projet  of  convention  presented  by  them  at 
the  sixth  conference,  for  the  renewal,  for  a  fresh  term  of  years,  of  the 
provision  respecting  the  territory  on  the  Northwest  Coast  of  America 
west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  which  was  contained  in  the  Convention 
of  the  20th  October,  1818,  declared  themselves  disposed  to  withdraw 
that  project,  and  to  acquiesce  in  the  proposition  submitted  by  the 
American  Plenipotentiary,  for  the  simple  renewal  of  the  third  article 
of  the  Convention  of  1818. 

In  so  doing,  however,  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  intimated  that 
ihey  would  find  it  expedient  to  insert  in  the  protocol  a  declaration  ex- 
planatory of  what  they  considered  to  be  the  true  intent  of  that  article, 
namely,  that  both  parties  were  thereby  equally  restricted,  during  its 
continuance  in  force,  from  exercising  or  assuming  the  right  to  exer- 
cise, any  exclusive  sovereignty  or  jurisdiction  over  the  territory  in 
question. 

The  British  Plenipotentiaries  added,  that,  at  an  early  opportunity, 
they  would  be  prepared  to  submit  a  project  of  convention  and  declara- 
tion, drawn  up  in  the  above  sense. 

The  American  Plenipotentiary  expressed  himself  ready  to  pay 
every  attention  to  any  proposition  which  might  come  from  the  British 
Plenipotentiaries,  but  doubted  whether  he  would  be  able  to  sign  any 
convention,  if  accompanied  by  a  declaration  of  the  nature  abovcmen-^ 
tinned. 

The  American  Plenipotentiary  said  that  he  would  take  also  that 
subject  for  consideration. 


Draft  of  Protocol  of  9th  Conference,  as  first  proposed  by  the  Biitish 

Plenipotentiaries. 

Protocol  of  the  9th  conference  held  at  the  Board  of  Trade,  l!}th 
June,  1827. 

The  protocol  of  the  preceding  conference  was  read  over  and  signed. 

The  Brilisli  Plenipotentiaries  informed  the  American  Plenipoten- 
tiary that  they  had  taken  into  consideration  the  proposition  made  by 
iiim  at  the  preceding  conference,  for  tlic  simple  renewal,  during  a  fur- 
tlifr  term  of  ten  years,  of  the  3d  article  of  tlie  Convco+^on  of  1818, 
10 


14 


[ttoc.  No.  199.] 


^m! 


;  '* 


■•i   ••; 


injcliidiiig  the  additional  article  submitted  b;  the  British  Plenipoten- 
tiaries, at  the  sixth  conference,  to  the  admission  of  which  the  Ameri- 
can Plenipotentiary  had  declared  that  his  Government  objected. 

The  British  Plenipotentiaries  stated  that  they  were  willing  to  desist 
from  pressing  for  the  insertion  of  that  article  in  the  Convention  whi  h 
it  was  now  proposed  to  renew  and  that  they  would  consent  to  a  sim- 
ple renewal  of  the  third  article  of  the  Convention  of  1818.  In  so  do- 
ing, however,  they  would  find  it  expedient  to  enter  on  the  protocol  a 
declaration  explanatory  of  what  they  considered  to  be  the  true  intent 
of  that  article,  namely,  that  both  parties  were  thereby  restricted,  dur- 
ing its  continuance  in  force,  from  exercising,  or  assuming  to  themselves 
the  riglit  to  exercise,  any  exclusive  sovereignty  or  jurisdiction  over  the 
territory  mentioned  in  that  article. 

Tlie  I3ritish  Plenipotentiaries  intimated,  that,  at  an  early  opportuni- 
ty, they  would  put  formally  into  the  hands  of  the  American  Plenipo- 
tentiary a  |.i'ojcct  of  Convention  drawn  up  in  the  above  sense^  as  well 
as  of  H  declaration  of  the  nature  above  described. 


J     '■''.: 


Extracts  from  the  Protocol  of  the  tenth  Conference  between  the  Ameri- 
can ana  Bnlish  Plenipotentiaries,  held  at  the  Board  of  IVade,  on 
the  22d  of  June,  1827. 


Present — Mr.  Gallatin", 
Mr.  HusKissoN, 
Mr.  Addington*. 


^ 


The  protocol  of  the  preceding  conference  was  read  over  and  signed. 

In  reference  to  the  intimation  at  the  (^receding  conference,  by  the 
British  Plenipotentiaries,  of  the  declaration  which  they  expressed 
their  intention  to  insert  in  the  protocol,  on  renewing  the  third  article 
of  the  Convention  of  1818,  relative  to  the  territory  west  of  the  Rocky 
iMountains,  the  American  Plenipotentiary  observed,  that  the  said  ar- 
ticle having  only  provided  that  the  territory  in  question  should  be  free 
and  open  to  the  vessels,  citizens,  and  subjects,  of  the  two  Powers,  he 
could  not  admit  that,  according  to  its  true  meaning  and  intent,  any 
other  act  of  either  party  was  thereby  forbidden,  but  such  as,  in  con- 
li'avention  of  the  article,  would  impede  or  impair  the  rights  secured 
by  it. 

To  acquiesce  in  the  declaration  which  the  British  Plenipotentiaries 
had  expressed  their  intention  to  insert  in  the  protocol,  appeared  to 
him  tantamount  to  the  insertion  in  the  Convention  of  the  same  provi- 
sion, to  whicli,  as  part  of  the  second  article  of  tlic  projet,  offered  at  the 
sixth  conference,  the  United  States  had  already  declared  that  they 
could  not  accede. 

He  must,  therefore,  declare  his  inability  to  agree  to  a  renewal  of 
the  Convention  of  1818,  if  .'iccompanied  by  a  declaration,  such  as 
had  been  intimated,  or  purporting  to  explain  the  meaning  or  inteqt  of 
the  article. 


[Doc.  No.  199.] 

PROTOCOL  of  the  12//i  Conference  between  the  American  and  British 
FlenipotentiarieSf  held  at  the  Board  of  Trade,  on  the  iisl  July,  1827> 

Present — Mr.  Gallatin, 
..       *  ••  ,Mr.  GttANT,      '  ■•  ^■\". 

Mr.  Addinotok. 

The  protocols  of  the  two  preceding  conferences  were  read  over  and 
signed. 

In  consequence  of  tlve  retirement  from  the  commission  of  one  of  tlte 
former  British  Pleni|)otentiarics,  and  tlie  appointment  of  a  successor 
in  his  place,  the  Plenipotentiaries  again  examined  and  exchanged 
their  full  powers. 

In  reference  to  the  observations  and  declaration  made  at  tlic  tenth 
conference,  by  the  American  Plenipotentiary,  with  respect  to  the  re- 
newal of  the  third  article  of  the  Convention  of  1 8 1 8,  if  accompiinied  by 
the  declaration  proposed  at  the  9th  conference  by  the  British  Plenipo- 
tentiaries, the  latter  stated  that  tliey  conceived  that  the  main  benefit 
resulting  from  that  article  was,  that  it  kept  in  abeyance,  during  the 
term  of  its  existence^  all  conflicting  riglits  to  the  territory  to  which  it 
related.  That  benefit,  however,  considering  the  diflcrence  of  ojnriion 
wliicli  prevailed  on  the  true  intent  of  that  article,  the  British  Pleni- 
potentiaries apprehended  could  no  longer  be  expected  to  result  from 
its  renewal. 

Since,  therefore,  the  American  Plenipotentiary  had  declared  his  in- 
ability to  agree  to  such  a  declaration  as  tbat  proposed  by  the  British 
Plenipotentiaries,  the  latter  were  comi)elled  to  decline  accepting  the 
pro[)osal  of  the  American  Plenipotentiary  for  renewing,  for  a  further 
i^xcd  term  of  years,  the  third  article  of  the  Convention  of  1818. 

In  case,  however,  the  American  Plenipotentiary  should  so  far  modi- 
fy that  proposal  as  to  offer  the  renewal  of  that  article,  merely  as  a 
temporary  act,  intended  to  prevent  collision  between  the  parties,  while 
measures  were  maturing  for  effecting  a  more  permanent  settlement  of 
their  respective  claims,  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  would,  in  that 
case,  be  ready  to  take  such  a  proposition  into  consideration. 

'i'hey  however  expressly  stated,  that,  in  agreeing  to  such  a  proposal, 
Great  Britain  in  no  wise  receded  from  any  claim  previously  urged  on 
her  part  to  the  territory  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  or  admitted 
any  claim  advanced  by  the  United  States  with  resjicct  to  the  same 
tci'ritory. 


PROTOCOL  of  the  thirteenth  Conference  between  the  American  and 
British  Plenipotentiaries,  held  at  the  Board  of  Trade,  the  Z&th  July, 
1827. 

Present — Mr.  Gallatix,  ""■ 

"  **  Mr.  Grant,  ^fc* 

Mr.  Addingtow.  "•;'    ' 

<  '. 

The  protocol  of  the  last  conference  was  read  over  and  signed. 
The  American  Plenipotentiary  stated,  that  he  had  conceived  the 
principal  advantage  i-esulting  from  the  third  article  of  the  Convention 


76 


TDoc.  No.  199.] 


Mi: 


of  1818,  to  consiNt  ill  that  it  prevented  collisions  and  disputes  between 
the  citizens  and  subjects  of  the  two  parties ;  but  he  coincided  entirely 
in  the  opinion  of  the  British  Plenipotentiaries,  that,  in  whatever  sliape 
renewed,  it  must  be  with  a  mutual  understanding,  that  neither  party 
thereby  in  any  wise  receded  from  any  claim  previously  urged  jon  its 
part,  or  admitted  any  claim  advanced  by  the  other  party  to  tiie  terri*' 
tory  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains. 

With  that  understanding,  and  believing,  also,  that  a  temporary  re- 
newal was  necessary,  and  would  be  sufficient  to  afford  time  to  mature 
measures  having  for  their  object  a  more  definite  settlement  of  the 
claims  of  each  party  to  the  said  territory,  the  American  Plenipoten- 
tiary would  modify  his  former  proposal,  and  submit  a  renewal  of  the 
article  for  an  indefinite  time,  but  liable  to  be  rescinded  at  the  will  of 
either  party. 

He  accordingly  submitted  the  project  of  Convention,  hereto  annex- 
edy  wliich  was  talcen  by  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  for  consideration. 

ALBERT  GALLATIN, 


CUA.  GRANT, 

H.  U.  ADDINGTON. 


True  copy. 

W.  B.  Lawrence, 

Secretary  of  Legation. 


it'%p 


■■/■[ 


^■'•^H 


:«1« 


^  m 


VROJECT  of  Convention  relative  to  the  JVorthwest  Boundary, 

The  United  States  of  America  and  his  Majesty  the  King  of  the 
United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  being  equally  desirous 
to  prevent,  as  far  as  possible,  all  hazard  of  misunderstanding  between 
the  two  nations,  with  respect  to  the  territory  on  the  Northwest  Coast 
of  America,  west  of  the  Stony  or  Rocky  Mountains,  after  the  expira- 
tion of  the  third  article  of  the  Convention  concluded  between  them  on 
the  twentieth  of  October,  1818,  and  also  with  a  view  to  give  further 
time  for  maturing  measures  which  shall  have  for  their  object  a  more 
definite  settlement  of  the  claims  of  each  party  to  the  said  territory, 
have  respectively  named  their  Plenipotentiaries  to  treat  and  agree 
concerning  a  temporary  renewal  of  the  said  article;  tliat  is  to  say : 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Ai^bert  Galla- 
tin, their  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  to  his 
Britannic  Majesty : 

And  his  Majesty  the  King  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Bri- 
tain and  Ireland,  the  right  honorable  Charles  Grant,  a  member  of 
his  said  Majesty's  most  honorable  Privy  Council,  a  member  of  Parlia- 
ment, and  Vice  President  of  the  Committee  of  Privy  Council  for  Af- 
fairs of  Trade  and  Foreign  Plantations,  and  Henry  Unwin  Ad- 
DiNGTON.  Esq.,  who,  after  having  communicated  to  each  other  their 
respective  full  powers,  found  to  be  in  due  and  proper  forni,  have  agreed 
upon  and  concluded  tlie  following  articles : 


[Do«.  No.  199/1 


7r 


Article  I.  ^'^ 

All  ilic  provisions  of  tlio  tliird  article  of  the  Convention  concluded 
between  the  United  States  of  America,  and  his  Majesty  the  King  of 
the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  on  the  twentieth 
of  Uctobor,  1818,  shall  be,  &nd  they  are  hereby,  further  indefinitely 
extended  and  continued  in  force,  in  the  same  manner  as  if  all  the  pro* 
visions  of  the  said  article  were  herein  specifically  recited. 

AllTICLE   II. 

It  shall  be  competent,  however,  to  either  of  the  contracting  parties, 
in  case  either  should  think  fit,  at  any  time  after  the  twentieth  of  Octo- 
ber, 1828,  on  giving  due  notice  of  twelve  months  to  the  other  con- 
tracting party,  to  annul  and  abrogate  this  Convention  :  and  it  shall, 
in  such  case,  be  accordingly  entirely  annulled  and  abrogated  after  the 
expiration  uf  the  said  terra  of  notice. 

~-   ■  '  .  ■■', 

Article  III. 

Nothing  contained  in  this  Convention,  or  in  the  third  article  of  the 
Convention  of  the  twentieth  of  October,  1818,  hereby  continued  in 
I'orce,  shah  be  construed  to  impair,  or  in  any  manner  affect  the  cbims 
which  either  of  the  contracting  parties  may  have  to  any  part  of.  the 
rountry  westward  of  the  Stony  or  Rocky  Mountains. 

Article  IV.  ' 

The  present  convention  shall  be  ratified,  and  the  ratification,  shall 
Ite  exchanged  in  nine  months,  or  sooner  if  possible. 

In  witness  whereof,  the  respective  Plenipotentiaries  have  signed' 

the  same,  and  have  aflixcd  thereto  the  seals  of  their  arms. 
Done  at  London,   the  ■ '  ■     '     day  of  — — .  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  1827. 


^f 


**5 


l^i 


yC 


VECLARATIOJ>l* proposed  to  be  annexed  to  the  renewal  of  the  Conven- 
tion respecting  A'*orthxvestern  Boundary, 

In  renewing  the  third  article  of  the  Convention  of  1818,  relative  to 
the  territory  on  the  Northwest  Coast  of  America,  westward  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains,  his  Britannic  Majesty  hereby  declares  that,  as  his 
Majesty  considers  himself  precluded  by  the  provisions  of  that  article, 
now  renewed,  from  exercising,  or  assuming  to  himself  the  right  to 
exercise,  any  exclusive  sovereignty  or  jurisdiction  over  the  territory 
mentioned  in  t^at  article,  so,  his  Majesty,  in  like  manner,  holds  that 
the  United  States  arc  equally  hound,  on  their  part  also,  to  abstain 
from  exercising,  or  assuming  to  themselves  tlie  right  to  exercise,  any 
exclusive  sovereignty  or  jurisdiction  over  the  said  territory,  during 
the  rontinnancp  in  force  of  the  present  Convention. 


